No God, No Science: Theology, Cosmology, Biology

by Michael Hanby

No God, No Science: Theology, Cosmology, Biology presents a work of philosophical theology that retrieves the Christian doctrine of creation from the distortions imposed upon it by positivist science and the Darwinian tradition of evolutionary biology.


Argues that the doctrine of creation is integral to the intelligibility of the world Brings the metaphysics of the Christian doctrine of creation to bear on the nature of science Offers a provocative analysis of the theoretical and historical relationship between theology, metaphysics, and science Presents an original critique and interpretation of the philosophical meaning of Darwinian biology

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Theology, Biology

456 pages, Paperback

First published February 15, 2013

Reviews

[Kristofer Carlson]

Their are a lot of good things in this book. I only wish those good things came in a more winsome package. My problem begins with his soporific writing style. (If I'm having trouble falling asleep, I'll begin reading this book.) Michael Hanby seems to delight in saying the same thing in as many different ways as possible. I'm sure to his mind he is elucidating fine gradations of meaning, and perhaps I am not sophisticated enough to grasp his point. Hanby seems to assume his readers will already possess a high degree of knowledge about his subject, and therefore he does not explain himself in any great detail. My problem is that if his intended readers already know most of this stuff, why did this book need to be written?

I finally got somewhere into chapter five (titled Darwin the Theologian) before giving up. Hanby begins the chapter by teasing some things he will get into later, then suddenly begins referring to things he already mentioned. But where, exactly? Not in this chapter, at least not that I can see. My problem is that if the book is going to be such a slog, the author needs to assist the reader. If an author refers to something previously said, then either provide a short summation or refer the reader to where it was said. Don't assume the reader is going to have perfect recall of something mentioned in another context some hundred pages ago.

It's possibly not fair, but I can't help but compare Michael Hanby with David Bentley Hart. Both are erudite scholars with prodigious vocabularies. However, I get the sense that Hart is trying to explain things to me, whereas Hanby is talking over my head and doesn't much care if I understand.

[Steve]

Hanby is an important and profound writer, and this book is largescale work that tries to address the relationship between theology, philosophy and science. This is a book about metaphysics. Part 1 discuses method and approach and establishes the necessity for theology for the scientific endeavour. Theology and metaphysics are inescapable. Part II proceeds to retell the story of the universe and science, and how paley's natural theology shared presuppositions with Darwin. Part III digs deeper into the metaphysical relation between God and creation. Creation "ex nihilo" is not so much as "how did it all start" question, as "how is it that there is something rather than nothing" question.