What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and Religion: An Impossible Dialogue
Today we hear renewed calls for a dialogue between science and why has the old question of the relations between science and religion now returned to the public domain and what is at stake in this debate? To answer these questions, historian and sociologist of science Yves Gingras retraces the long history of the troubled relationship between science and religion, from the condemnation of Galileo for heresy in 1633 until his rehabilitation by John Paul II in 1992. He reconstructs the process of the gradual separation of science from theology and religion, showing how God and natural theology became marginalized in the scientific field in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In contrast to the dominant trend among historians of science, Gingras argues that science and religion are social institutions that give rise to incompatible ways of knowing, rooted in different methodologies and forms of knowledge, and that there never was, and cannot be, a genuine dialogue between them. Wide-ranging and authoritative, this new book on one of the fundamental questions of Western thought will be of great interest to students and scholars of the history of science and of religion as well as to general readers who are intrigued by the new and much-publicized conversations about the alleged links between science and religion.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published July 5, 2017
5 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
About the author
Yves Gingras
45 books4 followersYves Gingras is Professor and Canada Research Chair in History and Sociology of Science, Department of History, at Université du Québec à Montréal.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 17, 2025
Can There Be Dialogue Between Science And Religion?
Together with many people, I have given thought to the relationship between science and religion and have read books from a variety of perspectives. I was glad to have the opportunity to read and review this new book "Science and Religion: An Impossible Dialogue" by Yves Gingras, Canada Research Chair in History and Sociology of Science at the University of Quebec at Montreal. The book was translated from the French by Peter Keating.
There are many ways of seeing the relationship between science and religion: some people find science and religion, properly understood, fully compatible, some find them in inevitable conflict, and some find they address different issues or "spheres". Some writers on science and religion, including, I think, this book properly remind the reader that there almost always is a political dimension to the discussion. In my opinion, the question of the relation between science and religion is getting renewed attention because of the strong polarization of opinion and the attempt of individuals of all views to find religious warrant for what they believe.
Gingras writes from a perspective I find refreshingly rationalistic. He is aware, at the outset, of the vagueness of the question of the relation between science and religion and the need to pin it down. He argues that the sciences, both natural and social sciences involve "attempts to provide reasons for observable phenomena by means of concepts and theories that do not call upon supernatural causes." It is harder to categorize religion. For purposes of his study, Gingras finds religion consists of a particular institution which appeals to a specific text and which generally involves a belief in a personal God. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions in this sense while pantheism or vague forms of spirituality outside denominational religion might not be.
Gingras' study has both a historical and critical component. He begins with a close examination of the conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church in the early 17th Century over the movement of the earth. He follows through the history of the conflict until 1992 when Pope John Paul II at last revoked the condemnation of Galileo. Gingras examines many other incidents of conflict between religious and scientific institutions involving, in particular, geology, biology, and Darwinism, and the historical, naturalistic approach to the human sciences, including the historical approach to Biblical texts. In these and other matters, Gingras finds that religious institutions and leaders took an antagonistic approach to science when in seemed to challenge what were taken to be Biblical or theological teachings.
Gingras examines what he finds to be largely contemporary efforts (beginning in the late 20th Century with some earlier antecedents) to promote "dialogue" or "conversation" between religion and science. Instead of finding conflict, this approach tries to promote harmony. Gingras finds several sources of the change in approach from conflict to dialogue. He points to the change in attitude of the Catholic Church and other religious bodies and also relies as well on the growth of foundations, such as the Templeton Foundation, which sponsors through large cash awards and grants scholarly work purporting to show the harmonious relationship between scientific findings and religious belief.
Gingras is highly skeptical of the possibility of dialogue between science and religion. He argues, I think with a great deal of merit, that in seeking non-supernaturalistic explanations for observable human and natural phenomena, science takes a metaphysical and epistemological stance that cuts it off from religious explanation. Many individual scientists may well be deeply and profoundly religious persons. Their religious commitments may well influence the way the approach science or the sorts of questions they choose to examine. However, their scientific work remains subject to the standards of scientific discipline which remains naturalistic and peer-determined. Thus the religiosity of individual scientists would be irrelevant to establishing the harmony between science and religion in terms of supernaturalism. Gingras examines in a rather cursory way some of the many writings purporting to show harmony between science and religion. He argues that they tend to rely on a superficial understanding of science or on a restatement of the argument from design that has had a long philosophical and scientific history. Gingras finds modern restatements of the argument from design philosophically and scientifically redundant. Thus, Gingras argues that there can be no dialogue between science and religion because each deals with a different things. Science is naturalistic and relies on institutional agreement among trained observers while religion is not so much wrong as inherently subjective and personal. Among Gingras' philosophical heroes are Scotus, whose philosophical voluntarism was opposed to Aquinas, and Kant.
Gingras' book is thoughtful and learned with many historical examples, including the fascinating recent case of the "Kennewick Man" in the United States and the conflict it posed between scientific and religious approaches to discovery. Gingras is probably, in the distinction drawn by William James, a tough-minded rather than a tender-minded thinker. I found his approach and his rationalism refreshing particularly in light of other approaches to the subject I have read. Still, he may be too quick with a large body of writing in support of "dialogue" that he does not discuss fully. He also, in my view, may move too quickly towards finding religion "subjective" without considering that it may be different from science and warrant consideration on its own. I agree with Gingras that any attempt at "dialogue" or, in the modern jargon, "conversation" should not give religion the right to interfere with any findings or investigations of science. These findings and investigations stand on their own. There may be a broader philosophical, metaphysical approach than that taken in this book. If so, there may be a sense in which "dialog" between science and religion is possible, but not the sense that Gingras critiques.
Gingras has written a thoughtful, provocative book for readers with a serious interest in the relationship between science and religion.
Robin Friedman
Together with many people, I have given thought to the relationship between science and religion and have read books from a variety of perspectives. I was glad to have the opportunity to read and review this new book "Science and Religion: An Impossible Dialogue" by Yves Gingras, Canada Research Chair in History and Sociology of Science at the University of Quebec at Montreal. The book was translated from the French by Peter Keating.
There are many ways of seeing the relationship between science and religion: some people find science and religion, properly understood, fully compatible, some find them in inevitable conflict, and some find they address different issues or "spheres". Some writers on science and religion, including, I think, this book properly remind the reader that there almost always is a political dimension to the discussion. In my opinion, the question of the relation between science and religion is getting renewed attention because of the strong polarization of opinion and the attempt of individuals of all views to find religious warrant for what they believe.
Gingras writes from a perspective I find refreshingly rationalistic. He is aware, at the outset, of the vagueness of the question of the relation between science and religion and the need to pin it down. He argues that the sciences, both natural and social sciences involve "attempts to provide reasons for observable phenomena by means of concepts and theories that do not call upon supernatural causes." It is harder to categorize religion. For purposes of his study, Gingras finds religion consists of a particular institution which appeals to a specific text and which generally involves a belief in a personal God. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions in this sense while pantheism or vague forms of spirituality outside denominational religion might not be.
Gingras' study has both a historical and critical component. He begins with a close examination of the conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church in the early 17th Century over the movement of the earth. He follows through the history of the conflict until 1992 when Pope John Paul II at last revoked the condemnation of Galileo. Gingras examines many other incidents of conflict between religious and scientific institutions involving, in particular, geology, biology, and Darwinism, and the historical, naturalistic approach to the human sciences, including the historical approach to Biblical texts. In these and other matters, Gingras finds that religious institutions and leaders took an antagonistic approach to science when in seemed to challenge what were taken to be Biblical or theological teachings.
Gingras examines what he finds to be largely contemporary efforts (beginning in the late 20th Century with some earlier antecedents) to promote "dialogue" or "conversation" between religion and science. Instead of finding conflict, this approach tries to promote harmony. Gingras finds several sources of the change in approach from conflict to dialogue. He points to the change in attitude of the Catholic Church and other religious bodies and also relies as well on the growth of foundations, such as the Templeton Foundation, which sponsors through large cash awards and grants scholarly work purporting to show the harmonious relationship between scientific findings and religious belief.
Gingras is highly skeptical of the possibility of dialogue between science and religion. He argues, I think with a great deal of merit, that in seeking non-supernaturalistic explanations for observable human and natural phenomena, science takes a metaphysical and epistemological stance that cuts it off from religious explanation. Many individual scientists may well be deeply and profoundly religious persons. Their religious commitments may well influence the way the approach science or the sorts of questions they choose to examine. However, their scientific work remains subject to the standards of scientific discipline which remains naturalistic and peer-determined. Thus the religiosity of individual scientists would be irrelevant to establishing the harmony between science and religion in terms of supernaturalism. Gingras examines in a rather cursory way some of the many writings purporting to show harmony between science and religion. He argues that they tend to rely on a superficial understanding of science or on a restatement of the argument from design that has had a long philosophical and scientific history. Gingras finds modern restatements of the argument from design philosophically and scientifically redundant. Thus, Gingras argues that there can be no dialogue between science and religion because each deals with a different things. Science is naturalistic and relies on institutional agreement among trained observers while religion is not so much wrong as inherently subjective and personal. Among Gingras' philosophical heroes are Scotus, whose philosophical voluntarism was opposed to Aquinas, and Kant.
Gingras' book is thoughtful and learned with many historical examples, including the fascinating recent case of the "Kennewick Man" in the United States and the conflict it posed between scientific and religious approaches to discovery. Gingras is probably, in the distinction drawn by William James, a tough-minded rather than a tender-minded thinker. I found his approach and his rationalism refreshing particularly in light of other approaches to the subject I have read. Still, he may be too quick with a large body of writing in support of "dialogue" that he does not discuss fully. He also, in my view, may move too quickly towards finding religion "subjective" without considering that it may be different from science and warrant consideration on its own. I agree with Gingras that any attempt at "dialogue" or, in the modern jargon, "conversation" should not give religion the right to interfere with any findings or investigations of science. These findings and investigations stand on their own. There may be a broader philosophical, metaphysical approach than that taken in this book. If so, there may be a sense in which "dialog" between science and religion is possible, but not the sense that Gingras critiques.
Gingras has written a thoughtful, provocative book for readers with a serious interest in the relationship between science and religion.
Robin Friedman
September 24, 2019
Lost in an immense forest at night, I have only a small light to find my way; come a stranger who tells me: ‘my friend, blow your candle to better find your way’. This stranger is a theologian.
- Diderot
Science and Religion by Canadian historian Yves Gingras examines whether conflict exists between the two subjects and at the risk of spoiling the ending … the answer is ‘Yes … yes it does’.
It didn’t have to be this way, the two disciplines focus on different objects. Science seeks to discover naturalistic explanations of physical phenomenon, while religion focuses on the spiritual aspects of the human condition. To paraphrase Galileo ‘the intention of religion is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes.’
That isn’t how it works in practice though, because religion can’t help but make truth claims about the physical world. Things like:
- The earth was created in seven days.
- That the sun revolves around the earth.
- That god created humans in their present form.
- That Jesus was born of a virgin.
- That transubstantiation is real.
- That the many miracles described in the bible actually occurred.
These are claims that can be tested by science … and science has demonstrated that they simply cannot be true. While mathematics or economics might not pose a problem for religion, the same cannot be said about cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, or even history.
Galileo found this out the hard way when he discussed his support of the Copernican system of our solar system (a stationary sun with the Earth and other planets orbiting around it in circular paths). This idea conflicted with church doctrine (supported by the bible) of a universe with the Earth at its center. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the remainder of his life under house arrest.
The church’s position regarding science was, and has been very clear … science must remain subordinate to theology when it addresses issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the bible. Their efforts to suppress science have been very successful for many hundreds of years. Techniques such as torture and imprisonment can be rather persuasive in this regard as can the banning of books (something the Catholic Church continued to do through their Index librorum prohibitorum up to the middle of the 1960s).
Even today religion continues to insert itself into scientific issues with much the same misguided zeal as occurred with Galileo:
- Most states in the U.S. (44) allow children to be exempt from vaccinations due to religious concerns.
- Conflicts regarding the teaching of evolution persist, with religious believers pushing to include creationism or intelligent design in the classroom despite the fact that they have no supporting evidence.
- Religious adherents strive to restrict the rights of certain groups they find objectionable (homosexuals, transgender, etc.).
Science will ultimately triumph over these conflicts, just as it has over the geocentric view of the solar system because facts are stubborn things. Add to this the fact that every major religion worldwide is losing adherents at an accelerating pace and it is little wonder that believers are desperately thrashing about in an effort to retain a modicum of their dwindling power.
One such strategy involves calls for religion and science to have a dialogue, as if science and theology could illuminate one another to the benefit of both. That’s not the case. There is nothing that religion has to offer science and the only thing that science can provide religion is to further debunk its ‘truth’ claims, diminishing it all the more. It should be pointed out that the calls for a ‘dialogue’ have always come from religious adherents who seek to use scientific discoveries to lend credibility to their faith.
As Schopenhauer once said “Knowledge is of a harder stuff than faith, so that when they collide the latter is shattered.”
As to the book, I thought it was so-so. Gingras did a nice job recounting the history of Galileo’s run-ins with the church, but overall I felt he offered little in the way of original insight into the topic that wasn’t presented more eloquently in Jerry Coyne’s excellent book Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.
- Diderot
Science and Religion by Canadian historian Yves Gingras examines whether conflict exists between the two subjects and at the risk of spoiling the ending … the answer is ‘Yes … yes it does’.
It didn’t have to be this way, the two disciplines focus on different objects. Science seeks to discover naturalistic explanations of physical phenomenon, while religion focuses on the spiritual aspects of the human condition. To paraphrase Galileo ‘the intention of religion is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes.’
That isn’t how it works in practice though, because religion can’t help but make truth claims about the physical world. Things like:
- The earth was created in seven days.
- That the sun revolves around the earth.
- That god created humans in their present form.
- That Jesus was born of a virgin.
- That transubstantiation is real.
- That the many miracles described in the bible actually occurred.
These are claims that can be tested by science … and science has demonstrated that they simply cannot be true. While mathematics or economics might not pose a problem for religion, the same cannot be said about cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, or even history.
Galileo found this out the hard way when he discussed his support of the Copernican system of our solar system (a stationary sun with the Earth and other planets orbiting around it in circular paths). This idea conflicted with church doctrine (supported by the bible) of a universe with the Earth at its center. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the remainder of his life under house arrest.
The church’s position regarding science was, and has been very clear … science must remain subordinate to theology when it addresses issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the bible. Their efforts to suppress science have been very successful for many hundreds of years. Techniques such as torture and imprisonment can be rather persuasive in this regard as can the banning of books (something the Catholic Church continued to do through their Index librorum prohibitorum up to the middle of the 1960s).
Even today religion continues to insert itself into scientific issues with much the same misguided zeal as occurred with Galileo:
- Most states in the U.S. (44) allow children to be exempt from vaccinations due to religious concerns.
- Conflicts regarding the teaching of evolution persist, with religious believers pushing to include creationism or intelligent design in the classroom despite the fact that they have no supporting evidence.
- Religious adherents strive to restrict the rights of certain groups they find objectionable (homosexuals, transgender, etc.).
Science will ultimately triumph over these conflicts, just as it has over the geocentric view of the solar system because facts are stubborn things. Add to this the fact that every major religion worldwide is losing adherents at an accelerating pace and it is little wonder that believers are desperately thrashing about in an effort to retain a modicum of their dwindling power.
One such strategy involves calls for religion and science to have a dialogue, as if science and theology could illuminate one another to the benefit of both. That’s not the case. There is nothing that religion has to offer science and the only thing that science can provide religion is to further debunk its ‘truth’ claims, diminishing it all the more. It should be pointed out that the calls for a ‘dialogue’ have always come from religious adherents who seek to use scientific discoveries to lend credibility to their faith.
As Schopenhauer once said “Knowledge is of a harder stuff than faith, so that when they collide the latter is shattered.”
As to the book, I thought it was so-so. Gingras did a nice job recounting the history of Galileo’s run-ins with the church, but overall I felt he offered little in the way of original insight into the topic that wasn’t presented more eloquently in Jerry Coyne’s excellent book Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.
November 21, 2018
Very shallow
A meaningful discussion of this very topic need to be very philosophically deep. However, the whole book only focus on the historical aspect of the topic. I give it more than one star since I had fun in reading those history. Nevertheless, not a single argument in this book is worth a discussion, since they are easily dismissible by every readers who think into them; for those who skim through this book, it may just become another source of poor arguments and unjustified personal opinions which definitely not worthy your time unless you are interested in reading some history.
A meaningful discussion of this very topic need to be very philosophically deep. However, the whole book only focus on the historical aspect of the topic. I give it more than one star since I had fun in reading those history. Nevertheless, not a single argument in this book is worth a discussion, since they are easily dismissible by every readers who think into them; for those who skim through this book, it may just become another source of poor arguments and unjustified personal opinions which definitely not worthy your time unless you are interested in reading some history.
February 3, 2025
A great book that shows the relationship between religion and science throughout history!
"In fact, calls for "dialogue" always come from religions and their spokesmen, popes, bishops, priests and theologians, who want to take advantage of scientific discoveries. The immense and inevitable credibility of science forces the promoters of religions to seek "dialogue" with science, as if they needed a "scientific" foundation to make their religious beliefs and dogmas also credible.
"...science is synonymous with rational criticism, and "criticism" does not respect things: it is not stopped by secrecy or prestige, it breaks every spell and lifts every veil".
"In fact, calls for "dialogue" always come from religions and their spokesmen, popes, bishops, priests and theologians, who want to take advantage of scientific discoveries. The immense and inevitable credibility of science forces the promoters of religions to seek "dialogue" with science, as if they needed a "scientific" foundation to make their religious beliefs and dogmas also credible.
"...science is synonymous with rational criticism, and "criticism" does not respect things: it is not stopped by secrecy or prestige, it breaks every spell and lifts every veil".
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews