What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality
One of our great theologians, also a physicist, here sets a new agenda for religion’s dialogue with science
Most often, the dialogue between religion and science is initiated by the discoveries of modern science—big bang cosmology, evolution, or quantum theory, for example. In this book, scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne changes the discussion. He approaches the dialogue from a little-explored perspective in which theology shapes the argument and sets the agenda of questions to be considered.
The author begins with a review of approaches to science and religion in which the classification focuses on theological content rather than on methodological technique. He then proceeds with chapters discussing the role of Scripture, a theology of nature, the doctrine of God, sacramental theology, and eschatology. Throughout, Polkinghorne takes the perspective of Trinitarian thinking while arguing in a style that reflects the influence of his career as a theoretical physicist. In the final chapter, the author defends the appropriateness of addressing issues of science and religion from the specific standpoint of his Christian belief. His book provides an important model for theologians and scientists alike, showing how their two fields can inform one another in significant ways.
Most often, the dialogue between religion and science is initiated by the discoveries of modern science—big bang cosmology, evolution, or quantum theory, for example. In this book, scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne changes the discussion. He approaches the dialogue from a little-explored perspective in which theology shapes the argument and sets the agenda of questions to be considered.
The author begins with a review of approaches to science and religion in which the classification focuses on theological content rather than on methodological technique. He then proceeds with chapters discussing the role of Scripture, a theology of nature, the doctrine of God, sacramental theology, and eschatology. Throughout, Polkinghorne takes the perspective of Trinitarian thinking while arguing in a style that reflects the influence of his career as a theoretical physicist. In the final chapter, the author defends the appropriateness of addressing issues of science and religion from the specific standpoint of his Christian belief. His book provides an important model for theologians and scientists alike, showing how their two fields can inform one another in significant ways.
184 pages, Paperback
First published August 11, 2004
10 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
About the author
John C. Polkinghorne
63 books123 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
June 27, 2023
A physicist-theologian explores the relationship between science and Christianity?! This is the book I wish I'd written.
Polkinghorne attempts to pave a new way forward for interaction between the sciences and theology in which he does not try to fit religious beliefs into scientific theories or scientific ones into religious dogma but rather describe an engagement that is both methodological and "content-based"—what can the methods or ways we go about both theology and science teach other and which topics that theology and science address are relevant to the other discipline/field?
What I loved about his approach was that it was grounded in specifically Trinitarian theology, for he believes that the reality of the Trinity is most important, compelling tenet—and experience!—of Christianity. The Trinity is the main lens, so to speak, that Polkinghorne uses to view not only the faith-science interaction but topics within theology as well. If there's anything my undergrad theology classes taught me, it was centrality of the Trinity. I've never seen theology done with it as such an explicit emphasis, and I loved it.
He also approached this issue from a sacramental perspective, in his words: "I believe that Christian salvific symbols are never nearly free-floating, but anchored in actual occurrence...the fusion of the power of symbol with the power of actual history." It's a balance I quite appreciate, holding to the historical, material fact of the major events of the Christian narrative while also acknowledging their supra-rational, symbolic, supra-literal (is this a thing?) significance and role.
If it sounds like I'm throwing around a lot of jargon, it's because I haven't fully wrapped my mind around his argument and its consequences. I often lost the thread of the overall argument—how can science and theology relate in a way that is fair to each as well as mutually enriching? Some of my favorite parts were his theological explorations of different topics (the Eucharist, eschatology, how to interpret the Bible, etc.), but what I wanted from this book was more about the connection of all this theology with science, hence the four stars. I think a lot of that is not due to him but to my unfamiliarity with this topic, so it's definitely book I want to come back to and a topic I want to dive into more deeply. I can tell it has sown many seeds, and now it's time to sit back and let them germinate.
Some quotes:
For me, it is Trinitarian belief that is truly persuasive belief. Of course, that belief is much more complex than simple recognition of the Mind of God behind the order of nature, just as modern quantum theory is more complex than Max Planck's original idea that energy comes in packets. Yet, Trinitarian belief is complex in ways seem to me to be necessary to match the depth of experience and insight recorded in the Bible, and continued in the ongoing life of the Church.
~
I confess that I've exhausted all that I am able to say about these Holy Mysteries [the Eucharist] which lie at the heart of my own Christian life. It is characteristic of the way in which scientists think that when we feel we have said all that we can, we just stop and do not try to elaborate further. I simply want to emphasise the fact, again so familiar to a scientist, that an inability to form a totally articulated interpretation of all aspects of a realm of experience is never grounds for the foolish denial of the reality of that experience.
~
It is not to some abstractly conceived notion of prior rationality that we must strive to conform our thinking, but do the character of what it is that we are seeking to understand. A physicist who attempts to approach an intrinsically quantum phenomenon, such as the photoelectric effect, but is only prepared to do so in accordance with a thought patterns of classical physics, will be condemned to permanent bafflement. The essential claim of the writers of the New Testament is that they are responding to a divine initiative and to a revelatory event that are without precedent, even to the extent that therein is involved the resurrection of a man from the dead to an unending new life of glory. Those who refuse all together to countenance the possibility that this might be so are condemning themselves to a Humean dismissal of anything that suggests a happening out of the ordinary.
Polkinghorne attempts to pave a new way forward for interaction between the sciences and theology in which he does not try to fit religious beliefs into scientific theories or scientific ones into religious dogma but rather describe an engagement that is both methodological and "content-based"—what can the methods or ways we go about both theology and science teach other and which topics that theology and science address are relevant to the other discipline/field?
What I loved about his approach was that it was grounded in specifically Trinitarian theology, for he believes that the reality of the Trinity is most important, compelling tenet—and experience!—of Christianity. The Trinity is the main lens, so to speak, that Polkinghorne uses to view not only the faith-science interaction but topics within theology as well. If there's anything my undergrad theology classes taught me, it was centrality of the Trinity. I've never seen theology done with it as such an explicit emphasis, and I loved it.
He also approached this issue from a sacramental perspective, in his words: "I believe that Christian salvific symbols are never nearly free-floating, but anchored in actual occurrence...the fusion of the power of symbol with the power of actual history." It's a balance I quite appreciate, holding to the historical, material fact of the major events of the Christian narrative while also acknowledging their supra-rational, symbolic, supra-literal (is this a thing?) significance and role.
If it sounds like I'm throwing around a lot of jargon, it's because I haven't fully wrapped my mind around his argument and its consequences. I often lost the thread of the overall argument—how can science and theology relate in a way that is fair to each as well as mutually enriching? Some of my favorite parts were his theological explorations of different topics (the Eucharist, eschatology, how to interpret the Bible, etc.), but what I wanted from this book was more about the connection of all this theology with science, hence the four stars. I think a lot of that is not due to him but to my unfamiliarity with this topic, so it's definitely book I want to come back to and a topic I want to dive into more deeply. I can tell it has sown many seeds, and now it's time to sit back and let them germinate.
Some quotes:
For me, it is Trinitarian belief that is truly persuasive belief. Of course, that belief is much more complex than simple recognition of the Mind of God behind the order of nature, just as modern quantum theory is more complex than Max Planck's original idea that energy comes in packets. Yet, Trinitarian belief is complex in ways seem to me to be necessary to match the depth of experience and insight recorded in the Bible, and continued in the ongoing life of the Church.
~
I confess that I've exhausted all that I am able to say about these Holy Mysteries [the Eucharist] which lie at the heart of my own Christian life. It is characteristic of the way in which scientists think that when we feel we have said all that we can, we just stop and do not try to elaborate further. I simply want to emphasise the fact, again so familiar to a scientist, that an inability to form a totally articulated interpretation of all aspects of a realm of experience is never grounds for the foolish denial of the reality of that experience.
~
It is not to some abstractly conceived notion of prior rationality that we must strive to conform our thinking, but do the character of what it is that we are seeking to understand. A physicist who attempts to approach an intrinsically quantum phenomenon, such as the photoelectric effect, but is only prepared to do so in accordance with a thought patterns of classical physics, will be condemned to permanent bafflement. The essential claim of the writers of the New Testament is that they are responding to a divine initiative and to a revelatory event that are without precedent, even to the extent that therein is involved the resurrection of a man from the dead to an unending new life of glory. Those who refuse all together to countenance the possibility that this might be so are condemning themselves to a Humean dismissal of anything that suggests a happening out of the ordinary.
Read
March 3, 2025Polinghorne’s aim in this book is to make a contribution to the dialogue between science and religion. He is both a physicist and a Anglican clergyman and his approach generally begins with theological concerns. The book is based on series of lectures given in 2003, titled “Trinitarian Perspectives” and ranges beyond a single discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Some of the chapters are dense such as the first one how four approaches, deistic, theistic, developmental, revisionary, affect how we think about the interaction between science and theology. . An example would be how biological evolution and Big Bang cosmology affect the way theologians talk about the doctrine of creation. But the language is abstract, full of references to various perspectives, in short, it’s tough reading.
Chapter Three specifically discusses the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of natural theology meaning that it fits into a deeply intelligible universe. Polkinghorne emphasizes that it is only mathematical equations in fundamental physics that unlocks many aspects of reality which are rational and point to a universe that is relational.
Einstein’s theory of relativity bears this out in which time is not absolute but relative tot he motion of the observer. Quantum theory implies “that once two quantum entities have interacted with each other , they remain mutually entangled however far they may eventually separate. This counterintuitive togetherness-in-separation” is called non-locality. The implications for a trinitarian God may not be fully worked out, but the notion of a creator (God), a “son” (Christ), and the Spirit (guidance and contact) is one of motion and process, not a static condition.
In the same way the author writes it is impossible to think about created realty without including its evolutionary aspects and what he says is its ‘radical temporality” by which I think he means the existence of the godman, Jesus Christ. He lived and died historically and with his resurrection left a type of model for humanity to follow; that as each individual progresses through his life, all of his experiences can potentially connect to a transcendent reality.
Interestingly, Polkinghorne sees resurrection for the individual as a possibility that is rational. Death is not permanent, but a transition to another kind of existence in which the soul, or self-awareness, persists. Not in any crude physical way, nor in any way that we can imagine, our thinking limited by our attachments to our physical bodies, but in some presently inconceivable organization of our energy, energy that flows toward an end and is not abruptly terminated. The author admits that much of this thinking is speculative, but not irrational. He quotes Augustine who wrote about the Trinity that it is better to modestly say something rather than remain totally silent.
That opinion echoes how I feel about this book. I have hardly touched upon its scope, even though it’s fairly short , and what I’ve said is a fumbling attempt to suggest its some of its essence. Better to fumble than give up and say nothing? I hope so.
.
Some of the chapters are dense such as the first one how four approaches, deistic, theistic, developmental, revisionary, affect how we think about the interaction between science and theology. . An example would be how biological evolution and Big Bang cosmology affect the way theologians talk about the doctrine of creation. But the language is abstract, full of references to various perspectives, in short, it’s tough reading.
Chapter Three specifically discusses the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of natural theology meaning that it fits into a deeply intelligible universe. Polkinghorne emphasizes that it is only mathematical equations in fundamental physics that unlocks many aspects of reality which are rational and point to a universe that is relational.
Einstein’s theory of relativity bears this out in which time is not absolute but relative tot he motion of the observer. Quantum theory implies “that once two quantum entities have interacted with each other , they remain mutually entangled however far they may eventually separate. This counterintuitive togetherness-in-separation” is called non-locality. The implications for a trinitarian God may not be fully worked out, but the notion of a creator (God), a “son” (Christ), and the Spirit (guidance and contact) is one of motion and process, not a static condition.
In the same way the author writes it is impossible to think about created realty without including its evolutionary aspects and what he says is its ‘radical temporality” by which I think he means the existence of the godman, Jesus Christ. He lived and died historically and with his resurrection left a type of model for humanity to follow; that as each individual progresses through his life, all of his experiences can potentially connect to a transcendent reality.
Interestingly, Polkinghorne sees resurrection for the individual as a possibility that is rational. Death is not permanent, but a transition to another kind of existence in which the soul, or self-awareness, persists. Not in any crude physical way, nor in any way that we can imagine, our thinking limited by our attachments to our physical bodies, but in some presently inconceivable organization of our energy, energy that flows toward an end and is not abruptly terminated. The author admits that much of this thinking is speculative, but not irrational. He quotes Augustine who wrote about the Trinity that it is better to modestly say something rather than remain totally silent.
That opinion echoes how I feel about this book. I have hardly touched upon its scope, even though it’s fairly short , and what I’ve said is a fumbling attempt to suggest its some of its essence. Better to fumble than give up and say nothing? I hope so.
.
July 27, 2019
A good, well-written, challenging and fruitful read. The title is a bit misleading as I felt the content was largely focused on theological questions with really just one chapter paying direct attention to scientific Discovery and relationship to theology. Really extraordinary examination of the Eucharist--my favorite part. There were a few connections made between trinitarian theology and reality as revealed through science (the tri-part atom being most obvious), but none developed too far.
September 4, 2023
This is an interesting, fairly accessible presentation of theology-science discourse. I would recommend this to someone who's curious about points of contact between the aforementioned topics has at least a basic awareness of philosophy and Christian doctrine.
As a fellow reviewer mentioned , Polkinghorne focuses primarily on theology, and relates to science from this theological (specifically Anglican) framework. Topics discussed include religious perspectives in science (deist, panentheist, trinitarian, etc), developments in eschatology, and the author's perspective on scripture and the eucharist.
As a fellow reviewer mentioned , Polkinghorne focuses primarily on theology, and relates to science from this theological (specifically Anglican) framework. Topics discussed include religious perspectives in science (deist, panentheist, trinitarian, etc), developments in eschatology, and the author's perspective on scripture and the eucharist.
July 14, 2019
Not an easy read to follow or at times to make sense of but that may be the fault of the reader and not the author.
October 1, 2013
In this relatively small book, John Polkinghorne suggests that science and theology have a lot in common. Polkinghorne begins by discussing Ian Barbour’s four approaches to the dialogue between science and theology: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. He then proposes a different kind of classification is needed: deistic, theistic, revisionary, and developmental. This chapter was a bit of a struggle for this layman, but the reader can begin with Chapter 2 and still benefit from the rest of the book.
Chapter 2 on the role of scripture was essentially how to think about scripture in 27 insightful pages. For instance, Polkinghorne points out that “Those who attempt to read Genesis 1 and 2 as if these chapters were divinely dictated scientific texts, kindly provided by God to save us the trouble of attempting to read the book of nature for ourselves, are committing just such an act of literary violence [confusing one genre with another]. They also put themselves in peril of missing the true theological point of the text, with its eightfold reiteration of the message that nothing exists except through the creative will and effectual utterance of God (‘And God said “Let there be . . .”’).” (p 44)
Polkinghorne suggests that “ . . . just as individual scientists are the indispensable originators of ideas, yet have to submit their proposals to the judgement of the competent community of their peers, so what is often thought of as a Protestant emphasis on the individual believer’s right to read and interpret scripture has to be qualified by what is often thought of as a Catholic emphasis on the sifting and receiving role played by the whole Christian community.” (p. 52)
In Chapter 3, Polkinghorne suggests that Trinitarian theology as a true ‘Theory of Everything’, “ . . . not that we can infer the Trinity from nature, but that there are aspects of our scientific understanding of the universe that become more deeply intelligible to us if they are viewed in a Trinitarian perspective. He suggests that “The more we understand scientifically the process of the world, the more it seems closely integrated—a package deal from which it is not possible in a consistent way to retain the ‘good’ and remove the ‘bad’. I do not for a moment believe that this insight eliminates all the anguish and perplexity that we feel at the evil and suffering in the world, but it does suggest that its presence is not gratuitous.” (p. 72)
In Chapter 4, Polkinghorne mentions numerous analogies between science and theology, e.g., “Perhaps a scaled-down analogy to the ambition of theological discourse about the divine infinity can be provided from within the experience of the fundamental physicist by considering the confident way in which quantum cosmologists talk about the extremely early universe and about the proliferating cosmic sequences of a hypothesized quantum multiverse. Their talk is both fascinating and precarious. The pretty arabesques that the quantum cosmologists perform are executed on the thinnest of intellectual ice and to the sound of cracking. (pp. 91-92)
In Chapter 6, Polkinghorne identifies and discusses four eschatological criteria whose fulfillment seemed to be essential for a credible theology: (1) if the universe is a creation, it must make sense everlastingly and so ultimately it must be redeemed from transience and decay, (2) if human beings are creatures loved by their Creator, they must have a destiny beyond their deaths, (3) in so far as present human imagination can articulate eschatological expectation, it has to do so within the tension between continuity and discontinuity, and (4) the only ground for eschatological hope lies in the steadfast love and faithfulness of God, which is testified to by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He then raises and suggests an answer for the question: “If the possibility of such a world [the world to come] is accepted, however, it does raise an acute theological question. If the new creation is to be such an attractive state, why did God bother with the old creation. (p. 164)
“Science and the Trinity” is good introduction to and/or summary of John Polkinghorne’s books. My only disappointment is that I did not discover this 2004 book sooner.
Chapter 2 on the role of scripture was essentially how to think about scripture in 27 insightful pages. For instance, Polkinghorne points out that “Those who attempt to read Genesis 1 and 2 as if these chapters were divinely dictated scientific texts, kindly provided by God to save us the trouble of attempting to read the book of nature for ourselves, are committing just such an act of literary violence [confusing one genre with another]. They also put themselves in peril of missing the true theological point of the text, with its eightfold reiteration of the message that nothing exists except through the creative will and effectual utterance of God (‘And God said “Let there be . . .”’).” (p 44)
Polkinghorne suggests that “ . . . just as individual scientists are the indispensable originators of ideas, yet have to submit their proposals to the judgement of the competent community of their peers, so what is often thought of as a Protestant emphasis on the individual believer’s right to read and interpret scripture has to be qualified by what is often thought of as a Catholic emphasis on the sifting and receiving role played by the whole Christian community.” (p. 52)
In Chapter 3, Polkinghorne suggests that Trinitarian theology as a true ‘Theory of Everything’, “ . . . not that we can infer the Trinity from nature, but that there are aspects of our scientific understanding of the universe that become more deeply intelligible to us if they are viewed in a Trinitarian perspective. He suggests that “The more we understand scientifically the process of the world, the more it seems closely integrated—a package deal from which it is not possible in a consistent way to retain the ‘good’ and remove the ‘bad’. I do not for a moment believe that this insight eliminates all the anguish and perplexity that we feel at the evil and suffering in the world, but it does suggest that its presence is not gratuitous.” (p. 72)
In Chapter 4, Polkinghorne mentions numerous analogies between science and theology, e.g., “Perhaps a scaled-down analogy to the ambition of theological discourse about the divine infinity can be provided from within the experience of the fundamental physicist by considering the confident way in which quantum cosmologists talk about the extremely early universe and about the proliferating cosmic sequences of a hypothesized quantum multiverse. Their talk is both fascinating and precarious. The pretty arabesques that the quantum cosmologists perform are executed on the thinnest of intellectual ice and to the sound of cracking. (pp. 91-92)
In Chapter 6, Polkinghorne identifies and discusses four eschatological criteria whose fulfillment seemed to be essential for a credible theology: (1) if the universe is a creation, it must make sense everlastingly and so ultimately it must be redeemed from transience and decay, (2) if human beings are creatures loved by their Creator, they must have a destiny beyond their deaths, (3) in so far as present human imagination can articulate eschatological expectation, it has to do so within the tension between continuity and discontinuity, and (4) the only ground for eschatological hope lies in the steadfast love and faithfulness of God, which is testified to by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He then raises and suggests an answer for the question: “If the possibility of such a world [the world to come] is accepted, however, it does raise an acute theological question. If the new creation is to be such an attractive state, why did God bother with the old creation. (p. 164)
“Science and the Trinity” is good introduction to and/or summary of John Polkinghorne’s books. My only disappointment is that I did not discover this 2004 book sooner.
March 5, 2014
Not as good as I was hoping it'd be. He has an open-theistic view of reality, and his view on scripture was a little too open, I thought, so these two beliefs affect how he sees certain things. He could have gone a lot deeper too (perhaps his views also affected how deeply he saw/sees).
But I was still thankful for his attempt to see certain things about scientific knowledge (or theories) in light of God's word, especially in respect to the Trinity.
But I was still thankful for his attempt to see certain things about scientific knowledge (or theories) in light of God's word, especially in respect to the Trinity.
August 10, 2008
Polkinghorne's most secular voice - only one chapter is composed of thick ecumenical language. The rest of the book is an excellent convergence of theology and scientific understanding. Life, free will, and suffering are all by-products of the cosmos described by physics, a cosmos that God built.
July 28, 2016
I wanted to like this book, but it wasn't very accessible to a non-theologian, non-scientist. Maybe not the first place to start with Polkinghorne for the law reader.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews