What do you think?
Rate this book
La ciencia desde la fe: Los conocimientos científicos no cuestionan la existencia de Dios
Este libro es una invitación a emprender un viaje apasionante: un modo diferente de concebir la ciencia y la religión que vincula ambos campos. Frente a las muchas predicciones de los filósofos de salón y los gurús de los medios de comunicación, Dios no se ha ido, ni tampoco ha desaparecido el interés por el ámbito de lo «espiritual». Hoy es el Nuevo Ateísmo el que suena a rancio y a gastado. La ciencia desde la fe pretende explorar un modo de ver las cosas que se enriquece tanto de la ciencia como de la religión en sus mejores versiones respectivas.
342 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 8, 2015
About the author
Alister E. McGrath
460 books519 followersAlister 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 25, 2021
Evangelical Solipsism
Why is it that folk who one day realise that rational thought isn’t all that rational and that talk about reality can be a false friend, can find an answer to their feelings of uncertainty in thought and language about God? Surely whatever their conceptions of the divine, these are the product of the same process of thought expressed in the same language that they started with. Yet they feel sufficiently confident in their conceptions to harass the rest of us about them.
McGrath is an intelligent man. I know this because I listened to him lecture on the history of theology over two terms at the University of Oxford. He began his adult life as a scientist, in fact as a somewhat scientistic scientist who considered knowledge obtained in any other way to be bogus. His discovery that science provided what he calls knowledge without meaning was a turning point in his life, a conversion. In the well-established tradition of Christianity, he found meaning in the words of the gospel.
But according to his own evangelical tradition, the meaning that McGrath finds in Christianity is not something to be arrived at through thought or effort. In fact the source of such meaning is beyond human capabilities entirely. The Word of God is not contained in the words of Man, not even in the words of sacred texts much less the words that apologists use to explain those texts. Without divine intervention in the psychic/spiritual constitution of a person, such meaning must remain elusive. And the presence of such intervention compels the recognition of that meaning.
So even for McGrath, meaning must remain a mystery. He doesn’t know how or why he has come to find meaning in Christianity, nor even what meaning might mean except that he finds Christianity comforting in some way. For McGrath, Christianity is a way to tie up the loose ends that are left, perhaps permanently, by practical science and other modes of thought like, say, poetry, philosophy, or pure mathematics. Religion, specifically the Christian religion, brings everything else together for him into a Big Picture. And he wants the rest of us to see that picture as well.
Thus the somewhat arrogant paradox of the evangelical mind, no matter how intelligent or well-read it is. This mind persistently, and in its own terms somewhat blasphemously, believes that it can supply meaning which is not just beneficial but also necessary for the rest of us to have. It fakes being the voice of the God it has become obsessed by (or captured by; the theological meaning is the same). It also dismisses the criterion of meaning found elsewhere, or simply not found at all, as inferior to its own. Unlike the rest of us, this mind claims to understand that reality which is beyond language. Its experience of that reality is greater than ours; and the meaning it has gained from that experience is deeper, more profound, and just all-round better than ours.
It strikes me, therefore, that intellectual memoirs like Inventing the Universe are a form of solipsism. The entire evangelical attitude is one that presumes its mode of thought gives it unique access to reality. It knows what science and religion really are and how they fit together; and it throws words like meaning, method, and faith around with abandon in order to demonstrate their own meaningfulness. Apparently such an attitude is immune to education and intelligence. Other folk just don’t have the ability to understand what they should. What is presented, in one form or another, are words pretending to be more than words. These words are annoying whether they originate in an evangelical like McGrath or a radical atheist like Richard Dawkins. What makes any of these enthusiasts think that they have anything meaningful to say at all?
Why is it that folk who one day realise that rational thought isn’t all that rational and that talk about reality can be a false friend, can find an answer to their feelings of uncertainty in thought and language about God? Surely whatever their conceptions of the divine, these are the product of the same process of thought expressed in the same language that they started with. Yet they feel sufficiently confident in their conceptions to harass the rest of us about them.
McGrath is an intelligent man. I know this because I listened to him lecture on the history of theology over two terms at the University of Oxford. He began his adult life as a scientist, in fact as a somewhat scientistic scientist who considered knowledge obtained in any other way to be bogus. His discovery that science provided what he calls knowledge without meaning was a turning point in his life, a conversion. In the well-established tradition of Christianity, he found meaning in the words of the gospel.
But according to his own evangelical tradition, the meaning that McGrath finds in Christianity is not something to be arrived at through thought or effort. In fact the source of such meaning is beyond human capabilities entirely. The Word of God is not contained in the words of Man, not even in the words of sacred texts much less the words that apologists use to explain those texts. Without divine intervention in the psychic/spiritual constitution of a person, such meaning must remain elusive. And the presence of such intervention compels the recognition of that meaning.
So even for McGrath, meaning must remain a mystery. He doesn’t know how or why he has come to find meaning in Christianity, nor even what meaning might mean except that he finds Christianity comforting in some way. For McGrath, Christianity is a way to tie up the loose ends that are left, perhaps permanently, by practical science and other modes of thought like, say, poetry, philosophy, or pure mathematics. Religion, specifically the Christian religion, brings everything else together for him into a Big Picture. And he wants the rest of us to see that picture as well.
Thus the somewhat arrogant paradox of the evangelical mind, no matter how intelligent or well-read it is. This mind persistently, and in its own terms somewhat blasphemously, believes that it can supply meaning which is not just beneficial but also necessary for the rest of us to have. It fakes being the voice of the God it has become obsessed by (or captured by; the theological meaning is the same). It also dismisses the criterion of meaning found elsewhere, or simply not found at all, as inferior to its own. Unlike the rest of us, this mind claims to understand that reality which is beyond language. Its experience of that reality is greater than ours; and the meaning it has gained from that experience is deeper, more profound, and just all-round better than ours.
It strikes me, therefore, that intellectual memoirs like Inventing the Universe are a form of solipsism. The entire evangelical attitude is one that presumes its mode of thought gives it unique access to reality. It knows what science and religion really are and how they fit together; and it throws words like meaning, method, and faith around with abandon in order to demonstrate their own meaningfulness. Apparently such an attitude is immune to education and intelligence. Other folk just don’t have the ability to understand what they should. What is presented, in one form or another, are words pretending to be more than words. These words are annoying whether they originate in an evangelical like McGrath or a radical atheist like Richard Dawkins. What makes any of these enthusiasts think that they have anything meaningful to say at all?
November 13, 2020
A reasonable plea for a multifocal view of reality
I didn't know Alister McGrath (° 1953), but apparently the man is a prominent voice in the debate between religion and science in the Anglo-Saxon world. And given his curriculum, he is clearly well versed in both domains, with PhDs in biophysics and in theology, as well as in intellectual history. He is a brainiac who has come a long way himself, evolving from an atheist scientist to becoming an Anglican priest. That says everything about his actual position in the science-faith debate. In this booklet his own development is regularly touched upon, and it spices his rather abstract argument with personal accents.
McGrath makes no secret that he is not pleased with the arrogance with which the high priests of New Atheism (Dawkins, Bennett, Hitchens, Harris) attack religion. They have a non-realistic, even downright distorted view of religions, and they are guilty of what he calls "scientific imperialism", a totalitarian view of science as the only and sufficient image of reality. McGrath is a bit sharp here, but I can broadly follow that criticism (though I admire the intellectual zeal of Dawkins and Bennett).
Instead, again and again McGrath pleads for a multifocal approach of reality, and that’s an argument that's dear to me. Indeed, as he puts it: “Because the universe is so complex and profound, we need a rich palette of colours to represent it and enjoy it. We cannot limit ourselves to only one method of exploring reality, or a single level of description or analysis. Reality is so complicated that we need a series of maps to describe it. No single map is good enough for such an integrated engagement with our world, even though it may be adequate for a particular and limited purpose. No single story can do justice to things.”So, for McGrath a purely scientific approach will never provide a complete picture of reality. Or at least, it will never be able to provide a satisfactory answer to the ultimate existential questions we face: what is the meaning of everything? What am I doing here? Which ethics should I follow? Etc. For him there is a role and a need for other meta-narratives, such as religions. That means that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, are by no means necessarily in conflict with each other, but complement each other, both offering their own view on reality, and both valuable to you as an individual being.
There are very few things in this book that I disagree with. Yet there are some weaknesses in McGrath's story. To begin with, he offers a very cerebral approach to religions, as if they only provide a theoretical framework that provides meaning, a kind of alternative rationality; McGrath is aware of this and refers to other aspects of religion, without elaborating. Two, in his conflict with the New Atheists, he puts just a little too much emphasis on the different approaches that science and religion are, as if that implies that they have nothing to say about each other; personally, I think the critical scrutiny of religion by scientists, including those of the New Atheists, is principally justified, and vice versa. Three, McGrath is too eager to use the cognitive sciences that say that man naturally leans towards the religious, spontaneously seeks a transcendent framework to give meaning to his life; I do understand what is meant by that, but it is a bit too easy an argument against New Atheism. Last, but not least: you cannot ignore the fact that many religions and churches still indulge in a pernicious, very fundamentalist view on reality (and I certainly do not mean only movements within Islam, but also within Christianity); for the sake of clarity, McGrath clearly distances himself from these views, but it is a fact that radical fundamentalism will continue to sour the dialogue between science and religion for a long time to come.
In short, I enjoyed reading this booklet and definitely follow McGrath in his conclusion: “We need the best picture of reality that we can devise if we are to inhabit it meaningfully and authentically. Why should we rest content with a monochrome picture of reality, when an enriched vision allows us to use a full palette of colours and appreciate it more fully? This richer vision provides a ‘big picture’ of things which possesses existential traction and not merely cognitive functionality. It is a way of seeing things which enables us not simply to exist, but to live.” Hear, hear! But at the same time, the limitation of this book is that it is just the starting point of a long and arduous journey. (rating 3.5 stars)
I didn't know Alister McGrath (° 1953), but apparently the man is a prominent voice in the debate between religion and science in the Anglo-Saxon world. And given his curriculum, he is clearly well versed in both domains, with PhDs in biophysics and in theology, as well as in intellectual history. He is a brainiac who has come a long way himself, evolving from an atheist scientist to becoming an Anglican priest. That says everything about his actual position in the science-faith debate. In this booklet his own development is regularly touched upon, and it spices his rather abstract argument with personal accents.
McGrath makes no secret that he is not pleased with the arrogance with which the high priests of New Atheism (Dawkins, Bennett, Hitchens, Harris) attack religion. They have a non-realistic, even downright distorted view of religions, and they are guilty of what he calls "scientific imperialism", a totalitarian view of science as the only and sufficient image of reality. McGrath is a bit sharp here, but I can broadly follow that criticism (though I admire the intellectual zeal of Dawkins and Bennett).
Instead, again and again McGrath pleads for a multifocal approach of reality, and that’s an argument that's dear to me. Indeed, as he puts it: “Because the universe is so complex and profound, we need a rich palette of colours to represent it and enjoy it. We cannot limit ourselves to only one method of exploring reality, or a single level of description or analysis. Reality is so complicated that we need a series of maps to describe it. No single map is good enough for such an integrated engagement with our world, even though it may be adequate for a particular and limited purpose. No single story can do justice to things.”So, for McGrath a purely scientific approach will never provide a complete picture of reality. Or at least, it will never be able to provide a satisfactory answer to the ultimate existential questions we face: what is the meaning of everything? What am I doing here? Which ethics should I follow? Etc. For him there is a role and a need for other meta-narratives, such as religions. That means that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, are by no means necessarily in conflict with each other, but complement each other, both offering their own view on reality, and both valuable to you as an individual being.
There are very few things in this book that I disagree with. Yet there are some weaknesses in McGrath's story. To begin with, he offers a very cerebral approach to religions, as if they only provide a theoretical framework that provides meaning, a kind of alternative rationality; McGrath is aware of this and refers to other aspects of religion, without elaborating. Two, in his conflict with the New Atheists, he puts just a little too much emphasis on the different approaches that science and religion are, as if that implies that they have nothing to say about each other; personally, I think the critical scrutiny of religion by scientists, including those of the New Atheists, is principally justified, and vice versa. Three, McGrath is too eager to use the cognitive sciences that say that man naturally leans towards the religious, spontaneously seeks a transcendent framework to give meaning to his life; I do understand what is meant by that, but it is a bit too easy an argument against New Atheism. Last, but not least: you cannot ignore the fact that many religions and churches still indulge in a pernicious, very fundamentalist view on reality (and I certainly do not mean only movements within Islam, but also within Christianity); for the sake of clarity, McGrath clearly distances himself from these views, but it is a fact that radical fundamentalism will continue to sour the dialogue between science and religion for a long time to come.
In short, I enjoyed reading this booklet and definitely follow McGrath in his conclusion: “We need the best picture of reality that we can devise if we are to inhabit it meaningfully and authentically. Why should we rest content with a monochrome picture of reality, when an enriched vision allows us to use a full palette of colours and appreciate it more fully? This richer vision provides a ‘big picture’ of things which possesses existential traction and not merely cognitive functionality. It is a way of seeing things which enables us not simply to exist, but to live.” Hear, hear! But at the same time, the limitation of this book is that it is just the starting point of a long and arduous journey. (rating 3.5 stars)
March 15, 2016
I really liked McGrath's ideas and enjoyed the quotes he selected to back them up. Others have already summed up the strong parts of this book well under The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God so I won't go into that more here. I'll just add my own thoughts about why it was demoted 2 stars below ;)
The book -- though easily readable, it was like a conversation -- was poorly written. There wasn't much flow, ideas were repeated multiple times, and there it wandered a lot. I sometimes wished he would remain on topic more or expand upon the topics he did bring up.
Also, his constant need to oppose and pick apart Richard Dawkins' and the other "New Atheists'" ideas got tiring. Especially because at the same time he kept praising and espousing CS Lewis and other ex-atheist/agnostic philosophers and scientists. It started to feel more like an "us" and "them" debate which, ironically, was what McGrath kept insisting was not the reality of the relationship between religion and science.
Finally, I really wish he hashed out his concluding thoughts at the end. I was expecting that the final chapter would apply the ideas he proposed into real life philosophy (I suppose not to answers some of those ultimate questions, but maybe at least to set up a framework to start working on them?), but this was not so. Perhaps my disappointment is indicative that the book was better than I thought, but it still frustrates me.
The book -- though easily readable, it was like a conversation -- was poorly written. There wasn't much flow, ideas were repeated multiple times, and there it wandered a lot. I sometimes wished he would remain on topic more or expand upon the topics he did bring up.
Also, his constant need to oppose and pick apart Richard Dawkins' and the other "New Atheists'" ideas got tiring. Especially because at the same time he kept praising and espousing CS Lewis and other ex-atheist/agnostic philosophers and scientists. It started to feel more like an "us" and "them" debate which, ironically, was what McGrath kept insisting was not the reality of the relationship between religion and science.
Finally, I really wish he hashed out his concluding thoughts at the end. I was expecting that the final chapter would apply the ideas he proposed into real life philosophy (I suppose not to answers some of those ultimate questions, but maybe at least to set up a framework to start working on them?), but this was not so. Perhaps my disappointment is indicative that the book was better than I thought, but it still frustrates me.
May 1, 2020
Grreat little book weaving together much of McGrath's thoughts on science, religion, truth, and meaning. Excellent
July 19, 2021
Bought for me as a present by a kind friend it was nice to get round to finally reading this book.
If someone wanted a jump point and a summary of what to read and who to listen to in terms of the discussions between religion and science then I would whole heartedly recommend this book. It surfs many key ideas, and leaves some conversations unfinished - deliberately I think - to allow folk to come to their own conclusions by reading further. If, on the other hand, you came expecting a polemic, you will be disappointed. You will also be disappointed if you expected an in depth refutation of science, and an equally in depth celebration of religion.
What you will have is a book which gently introduces you to the main players, and succinctly summarises their arguments. Of course there is a going to be some sniping at Dawkins - he is too much of a sacred cow not to have some pot shots taken at him - but there is some celebration of where he has been helpful in the understanding of human-ness.
So why three stars and not four or five then? For folk like me who have been annoyed at both extremes of the discussion for over three decades now, there is nothing really new here. Sure, there are lots of quotes from famous people on both sides and some in the middle, and it’s nice to have some dusty areas highlighted. But the overwhelming feel is that this book whilst people simply toss words at each other, nothing really happens in reality to move the discussion on. If anything it highlights the need to listen to each other, to dabble in the “porous” areas where each side feels they have authority, and work out for ourselves how our words will shape our deeds. After all, if everything is meaningless, then why bother with charity, with a health service, with those things which remove resources from the stronger so that the weaker can still make it through?
It is too easy to create strawmen in the debate: McGrath argues that we need to have a palette of viewpoints to deal with the world, and use that range to inform how to behave and act for ourselves and towards others.
Be kind.
If someone wanted a jump point and a summary of what to read and who to listen to in terms of the discussions between religion and science then I would whole heartedly recommend this book. It surfs many key ideas, and leaves some conversations unfinished - deliberately I think - to allow folk to come to their own conclusions by reading further. If, on the other hand, you came expecting a polemic, you will be disappointed. You will also be disappointed if you expected an in depth refutation of science, and an equally in depth celebration of religion.
What you will have is a book which gently introduces you to the main players, and succinctly summarises their arguments. Of course there is a going to be some sniping at Dawkins - he is too much of a sacred cow not to have some pot shots taken at him - but there is some celebration of where he has been helpful in the understanding of human-ness.
So why three stars and not four or five then? For folk like me who have been annoyed at both extremes of the discussion for over three decades now, there is nothing really new here. Sure, there are lots of quotes from famous people on both sides and some in the middle, and it’s nice to have some dusty areas highlighted. But the overwhelming feel is that this book whilst people simply toss words at each other, nothing really happens in reality to move the discussion on. If anything it highlights the need to listen to each other, to dabble in the “porous” areas where each side feels they have authority, and work out for ourselves how our words will shape our deeds. After all, if everything is meaningless, then why bother with charity, with a health service, with those things which remove resources from the stronger so that the weaker can still make it through?
It is too easy to create strawmen in the debate: McGrath argues that we need to have a palette of viewpoints to deal with the world, and use that range to inform how to behave and act for ourselves and towards others.
Be kind.
November 12, 2017
Remarkably clear and forceful. Hopefully this superbly balanced and intelligent book will put an end to the phoney war between faith and science!!!
February 19, 2018
A must-read for anyone interested in the subject. This is the first book I've read by Alister McGrath and have already started more by him - he is a very skilled author and teacher!
Read
August 17, 2025Alister McGrath wrote a good biography of Clive S. Lewis, and I decided to read his other works.
Sadly, this book is disappointed me. I expected more. Why?
On the one hand, Alister McGrath calls himself a Christian, writes some right things and criticizes (delicately) so-called "new atheism".
On the other hand, the author praises Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and their "theory of evolution" in this book. He doubts the existence of the human soul.
This is Christianity?
McGrath says a lot about the conflict of science and religion and tries to play a peacemaker.
However, there is no conflict between science and religion.
There is a conflict between different types of religion.
In particular, between the atheistic religion and Christianity (and other theistic religions too).
Yes, many atheists are propagandizing their religion with "scientific sauce", but it doesn't change the essence of the matter.
Also the author quotes often Clive Lewis, but he is not Clive Lewis.
I recommend this book to atheists, who doubt their beliefs.
Probably, it's the target audience of A. McGrath.
Sadly, this book is disappointed me. I expected more. Why?
On the one hand, Alister McGrath calls himself a Christian, writes some right things and criticizes (delicately) so-called "new atheism".
On the other hand, the author praises Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and their "theory of evolution" in this book. He doubts the existence of the human soul.
This is Christianity?
McGrath says a lot about the conflict of science and religion and tries to play a peacemaker.
However, there is no conflict between science and religion.
There is a conflict between different types of religion.
In particular, between the atheistic religion and Christianity (and other theistic religions too).
Yes, many atheists are propagandizing their religion with "scientific sauce", but it doesn't change the essence of the matter.
Also the author quotes often Clive Lewis, but he is not Clive Lewis.
I recommend this book to atheists, who doubt their beliefs.
Probably, it's the target audience of A. McGrath.
April 26, 2016
Well presented and coherently argued, this book explains why sloganeering and mocking of religion in the name of scientism is both inappropriate and small-minded. An enjoyable read by a Christian, scholar, and dedicated scientist.
June 2, 2016
A useful addition to the debate about the relationship between science and other world views- making the point well that they are not in conflict. Also recommended- Rabbi Jonathan Sachs: The Great Partnership.
October 16, 2016
Very clear and persuasive. Facile at times.
February 4, 2017
Important and valuable synthesis of why the war between science and faith is a fallacy
April 5, 2017
This is a thought-provoking and very readable book about the important connections that exist between science and spirituality. Far from being mutually exclusive world-views they can exist very well side by side, and in fact have done throughout history much more than we have been led to believe.
The author Alister McGrath studied for a degree in Chemistry and then later completed a PhD in biophysics. As a young man he regarded ‘God as outdated nonsense’ and assumed that ‘science disproved God, and all honest scientists were atheists’. At some stage he started to question some of his earlier thinking and was eventually ordained as a priest. He discusses this briefly at the beginning of the book and stresses that it was not some kind of sudden religious conversion but rather a rational investigation of Christianity that led him to see it as equal to science in its power to explain the universe.
In the book he takes pains to dispel the enduring myth that science and faith are continually involved in a war with each other and can never share any common ground. He shows how this is a narrative that has been propagated throughout history on both sides of the supposed divide. Through a number of interesting examples he explains how they have meshed together very well over the years.
One example that springs to mind is his comparison between the scientific and religious views of the origins of the universe that prevailed in Medieval times. The scientific view was of a universe that had always existed whilst the religious view saw the universe as having a specific beginning in time and place (this was required if God was to have created the world at some point in time). Interestingly it is now the old religious view that is closer to the modern scientific big bang theory.
The author Alister McGrath studied for a degree in Chemistry and then later completed a PhD in biophysics. As a young man he regarded ‘God as outdated nonsense’ and assumed that ‘science disproved God, and all honest scientists were atheists’. At some stage he started to question some of his earlier thinking and was eventually ordained as a priest. He discusses this briefly at the beginning of the book and stresses that it was not some kind of sudden religious conversion but rather a rational investigation of Christianity that led him to see it as equal to science in its power to explain the universe.
In the book he takes pains to dispel the enduring myth that science and faith are continually involved in a war with each other and can never share any common ground. He shows how this is a narrative that has been propagated throughout history on both sides of the supposed divide. Through a number of interesting examples he explains how they have meshed together very well over the years.
One example that springs to mind is his comparison between the scientific and religious views of the origins of the universe that prevailed in Medieval times. The scientific view was of a universe that had always existed whilst the religious view saw the universe as having a specific beginning in time and place (this was required if God was to have created the world at some point in time). Interestingly it is now the old religious view that is closer to the modern scientific big bang theory.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews