What do you think?
Rate this book
علم و دین در جستجوی حقیقت
John Polkinghorne, an international figure known both for his contributions to the field of theoretical elementary particle physics and for his work as a theologian, has over the years filled a bookshelf with writings devoted to specific topics in science and religion. In this new book, he undertakes for the first time a survey of all the major issues at the intersection of science and religion, concentrating on what he considers the essential insights for each. Clearly and without assuming prior knowledge, he addresses causality, cosmology, evolution, consciousness, natural theology, divine providence, revelation, and scripture. Each chapter also provides references to his other books in which more detailed treatments of specific issues can be found.
For those who are new to what Polkinghorne calls "one of the most significant interdisciplinary interactions of our time," this volume serves as an excellent introduction. For readers already familiar with John Polkinghorne’s books, this latest is a welcome reminder of the breadth of his thought and the subtlety of his approach in the quest for truthful understanding.
300 pages
First published January 1, 2011
18 people are currently reading
197 people want to read
About the author
John C. Polkinghorne
63 books124 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 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 23, 2020
This might be one of the wisest books I've ever read.
John Polkinghorne is a physicist and Anglican priest who has spent something on the order of five decades thinking and writing about the interaction, if not confrontation, between science and religion. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth reads something like a summary of that thought and those writings. As an introduction to Polkinghorne's writing – which it is for me – it seems almost tailor-made.
The result is not really a deep dive into any one facet of the science-religion debates, but rather a broad-level discussion of how science and religion seek for truth in different ways, and how their respective modes of investigation or interrogation can complement each other. That's nice because Polkinghorne is not an easy read; he rarely uses a $1 word when he can find a $10 one (e.g., "complexification" in place of "complexity"), so keeping the subject matter surface-level ensures that a layperson doesn't stay lost too long if they can't quite get their mind around topics such as the block universe or quantum mechanics.
I do wish Polkinghorne had an easier writing style to grasp; his insights and suggestions are too good to stay confined among the academic among us. In an effort to spread his thoughts a little more widely, following are a few quotes I most enjoyed:
pp. 21-22: An honest science addresses only one set of questions (roughly How? – concerned with the processes of the physical world), while theology addresses another set (roughly Why? – concerned with the meaning, value, and purpose present in what is happening). Neither side can claim to answer the other's questions, but we are perfectly familiar with the fact that both kinds of question are meaningful and necessary to ask. ... The resulting binocular vision onto reality [that comes from usng the congruence of science and theology to seek truth] may be expected to yield a view that is deeper and more comprehensive than either discipline could offer on its own.
p. 44: One could write a history of modern physics as being variations on the theme of an increasing realization that 'reality is relational.'
p. 65: Perhaps the most astonishing event in cosmic history that is known to us is the dawning of self-conscious life here on Earth. In our ancestors the universe had become aware of itself.
p. 69: Theology asserts the universe to be a divine creation, and it therefore should be gratefully attentive to all that science can tell it about the universe's nature and history.
pp. 71-72: Science has disclosed to us a world which, in its rational transparency and beauty, is shot through with signs of mind, and religious belief suggests that it is indeed the Mind of the Creator that lies behind the wonderful order of the universe. I believe that the reason within and the reason without fit together because they have a common origin in the God who is the ground both of human mental experience and of the existence of the physical world of which we are a part. ... The claim being made is not that this insight is logically incontestable and could not be denied, but that it offers the deeply intellectually satisfying best explanation of the remarkable access that science has been able to attain to the deep structure of the universe.
p. 80: Such a Creator [the evidence for whom is only found in the gaps of scientific knowledge] could be nothing more than a 'Cheshire cat deity', continually disappearing from sight with th advance of scientific knowledge, continually driven to take refuge over the next intellectual horizon.
p. 93: Prayer is not a substitute for action but a commitment to action. Those who pray for their neighbors must be prepared to go and help their neighbors.
p. 109: Hell is not a place of unending torture, painted red, but of unending boredom, painted grey, because the divine life that is life inedeed has been excluded from it by its inhabitants.
p. 117: Neither the Christian believer nor the unbeliever has access to indisputable proofs of the kind that it would be wholly irrational to dismiss, but there is the possibility for serious discussion that can be pursued with intellectual integrity and truthful intent.
John Polkinghorne is a physicist and Anglican priest who has spent something on the order of five decades thinking and writing about the interaction, if not confrontation, between science and religion. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth reads something like a summary of that thought and those writings. As an introduction to Polkinghorne's writing – which it is for me – it seems almost tailor-made.
The result is not really a deep dive into any one facet of the science-religion debates, but rather a broad-level discussion of how science and religion seek for truth in different ways, and how their respective modes of investigation or interrogation can complement each other. That's nice because Polkinghorne is not an easy read; he rarely uses a $1 word when he can find a $10 one (e.g., "complexification" in place of "complexity"), so keeping the subject matter surface-level ensures that a layperson doesn't stay lost too long if they can't quite get their mind around topics such as the block universe or quantum mechanics.
I do wish Polkinghorne had an easier writing style to grasp; his insights and suggestions are too good to stay confined among the academic among us. In an effort to spread his thoughts a little more widely, following are a few quotes I most enjoyed:
pp. 21-22: An honest science addresses only one set of questions (roughly How? – concerned with the processes of the physical world), while theology addresses another set (roughly Why? – concerned with the meaning, value, and purpose present in what is happening). Neither side can claim to answer the other's questions, but we are perfectly familiar with the fact that both kinds of question are meaningful and necessary to ask. ... The resulting binocular vision onto reality [that comes from usng the congruence of science and theology to seek truth] may be expected to yield a view that is deeper and more comprehensive than either discipline could offer on its own.
p. 44: One could write a history of modern physics as being variations on the theme of an increasing realization that 'reality is relational.'
p. 65: Perhaps the most astonishing event in cosmic history that is known to us is the dawning of self-conscious life here on Earth. In our ancestors the universe had become aware of itself.
p. 69: Theology asserts the universe to be a divine creation, and it therefore should be gratefully attentive to all that science can tell it about the universe's nature and history.
pp. 71-72: Science has disclosed to us a world which, in its rational transparency and beauty, is shot through with signs of mind, and religious belief suggests that it is indeed the Mind of the Creator that lies behind the wonderful order of the universe. I believe that the reason within and the reason without fit together because they have a common origin in the God who is the ground both of human mental experience and of the existence of the physical world of which we are a part. ... The claim being made is not that this insight is logically incontestable and could not be denied, but that it offers the deeply intellectually satisfying best explanation of the remarkable access that science has been able to attain to the deep structure of the universe.
p. 80: Such a Creator [the evidence for whom is only found in the gaps of scientific knowledge] could be nothing more than a 'Cheshire cat deity', continually disappearing from sight with th advance of scientific knowledge, continually driven to take refuge over the next intellectual horizon.
p. 93: Prayer is not a substitute for action but a commitment to action. Those who pray for their neighbors must be prepared to go and help their neighbors.
p. 109: Hell is not a place of unending torture, painted red, but of unending boredom, painted grey, because the divine life that is life inedeed has been excluded from it by its inhabitants.
p. 117: Neither the Christian believer nor the unbeliever has access to indisputable proofs of the kind that it would be wholly irrational to dismiss, but there is the possibility for serious discussion that can be pursued with intellectual integrity and truthful intent.
October 21, 2024
Wow! I felt like I was back in college reading a textbook on some sort of advanced course on the interaction between science and religion. By "science" I mean quantum mechanics, and by "religion" I mean the intellectual pursuit of religious understanding. I kind of understand quantum mechanics as I have a degree in physics. And I kind of understand Polkinghorne's presentation of religion as I got my degree from Wheaton College. But my gosh! Polkinghorne's paragraphs run on for pages. His sentences are the length of paragraphs. And his words! I think he makes some of them up. Anyway. I plowed through the book, but I think I'd have to plow through it a few more times before I got a good grasp on his points.
February 28, 2012
This was one of the most pleasant and enjoyable books that I have read from John Polkinghorne. His thoughts flow clearly and systematically onto the page, and for the most part I appreciate what he is saying and what he is struggling with. As Polkinghorne wrestles with the interface between science and religion, he does an excellent job in describing the limitations and rationality of both. This is possibly the best portion of the book. Polkinghorne repeats his classic statement about why the water in the kettle is boiling, which has an evident scientific answer but also a more accurate answer that has nothing to do with science: because he wanted to prepare a cup of tea. I really appreciated his discussion on free will and determinism, both from a scientific and theological perspective. On the other hand I did not agree with his conclusions which embraced and openness theology. He then contemplates some very difficult philosophical problems like how God resides in time, which were very interesting. Near the end of the book, Polkinghorne presents a summary of a Christian apologetic. Most of this was excellent, but I was also stung by how Polkinghorne is happy to nearly arbitrarily throw away portions of scripture as mythological.
March 14, 2025
Polkinghorne, John, SCIENCE and RELIGION in QUEST of TRUTH (2011), read 3-2025
The author’s intention is to demonstrate that religion and science are complementary and not in conflict. Much of his writing is dense and would merit careful rereading. My comments are limited to what I thought are a few of his more important th general principles. Science concentrates on the “how” of examining the processes of the physical world reality while religion or theology is concerned on the “why” of existence, its meaning and value. The author points out that neither side can claim to answer the other’s’ questions.
One aspect of this book that I thought was particularity interesting was the author’s assertion that in many ways theology is more open to development and correction than science. We think of scientific discoveries as objective an unchanging. That tends to be true, but there are exceptions. Newtonian physics explained everything until it didn’t, and that changed with the development of theories of relativity and quantum physics. So it may be that theology opens itself to constant self-examination while science, at least in the past, has often inflexibly been rigid.
I mentioned that science and religion can be complementary. Polkinghorne develops this idea by pointing out that the Judaic-Christian understanding of the world involves a rational God. If that is believed, then the reality of the world displays a “deep order” whichis accessible to human reason. That belief would emphasize experiments, and as in the case of Galileo would result in a corrected order.
In discussing Christianity, the author talks about the phenomenology of the New Testament, in which Christ takes actions whose meaning is unresolved and unclear. These events are interpreted and put in the context of a theoretical understanding. It may tend toward being symbolic or toward a more literal notion. As far as I could tell, Polkinghorne doesn’t dismiss some literal understandings of Christ, one worked out in the creeds that he is simultaneously God and Man. How can this be? Polkinghorne suggests that such an apparent contradiction is not impossible, as wit h quantum theory which holds that subatomic waves and particles simultaneously exist.
He emphasizes, though, that theories, both scientific and religious always involve a certain amount of mystery and uncertainly which humans should modestly accept. Not an easy book to read, despite its brevity, but worthwhile in framing questions that I wold never have thoght of on my own.
The author’s intention is to demonstrate that religion and science are complementary and not in conflict. Much of his writing is dense and would merit careful rereading. My comments are limited to what I thought are a few of his more important th general principles. Science concentrates on the “how” of examining the processes of the physical world reality while religion or theology is concerned on the “why” of existence, its meaning and value. The author points out that neither side can claim to answer the other’s’ questions.
One aspect of this book that I thought was particularity interesting was the author’s assertion that in many ways theology is more open to development and correction than science. We think of scientific discoveries as objective an unchanging. That tends to be true, but there are exceptions. Newtonian physics explained everything until it didn’t, and that changed with the development of theories of relativity and quantum physics. So it may be that theology opens itself to constant self-examination while science, at least in the past, has often inflexibly been rigid.
I mentioned that science and religion can be complementary. Polkinghorne develops this idea by pointing out that the Judaic-Christian understanding of the world involves a rational God. If that is believed, then the reality of the world displays a “deep order” whichis accessible to human reason. That belief would emphasize experiments, and as in the case of Galileo would result in a corrected order.
In discussing Christianity, the author talks about the phenomenology of the New Testament, in which Christ takes actions whose meaning is unresolved and unclear. These events are interpreted and put in the context of a theoretical understanding. It may tend toward being symbolic or toward a more literal notion. As far as I could tell, Polkinghorne doesn’t dismiss some literal understandings of Christ, one worked out in the creeds that he is simultaneously God and Man. How can this be? Polkinghorne suggests that such an apparent contradiction is not impossible, as wit h quantum theory which holds that subatomic waves and particles simultaneously exist.
He emphasizes, though, that theories, both scientific and religious always involve a certain amount of mystery and uncertainly which humans should modestly accept. Not an easy book to read, despite its brevity, but worthwhile in framing questions that I wold never have thoght of on my own.
November 8, 2020
📝📚«علم و دین»
بریده ای از کتاب:
درباره چگونگی ارتباط علم و دین، «یان باربور» چهار حالت را پیشنهاد کرده است؛ این چهار حالت عبارتند از: «تعارض»، «استقلال»، «گفتگو» و «یکپارچگی».
«تعارض» زمانی رخ می دهد که این یا آن رشته معرفتی مدعی می شود که خود تنها منبع حقیقت و فهم درست است یا علم است که گفته میشود به تمام سوالات معنادار و قابل پرسش پاسخ می دهد یا الهیات است که گفته میشود کلید ارزشمند معرفت را در اختیار دارد کلیدی که آن را توانمند می سازد تا پاسخ های معتبری حتی به سوال از چه زمان و تاریخ زندگی بدهد این ادعاها امروزه در هیاهوی بنیاد گران هر دو طرف شنیده می شود. در واقع هر دوی این مواضع نادرست است اعتقاد نسبتاً گسترده ای در جوامع امروزی وجود دارد مبنی بر این که علم و دین در کشاکش ای هستند که نهایتاً به مرگ یکی از آنها منجر خواهد شد این کشاکش از ادعاهای خام هر دو طرف ناشی می شود . علم مدعی است که کاملاً صالح است و دین خود را مطلقاً مصون از خطا میداند،[ اما هم علم و هم دین باید از چنین موضعی عدول کنند] علمِ راستگو فقط به بررسی مجموعه خاصی از سوالات میپردازد (تقریباً سوال از «چگونگی؟» ، سوالی که متوجه فرایند های جهان فیزیکی است) در حالیکه الهیات به مجموعه دیگری از سوالات متمایل است (تقریباً سوال است «چرایی؟» سوالی که با معنا ارزش و هدف موجود در اتفاقات سروکار دارد.) هیچ یک از علم و دین نمی توانند مدعی پاسخ به پرسشهای آن دیگری باشد اما ما به خوبی با این واقعیت مأنوسیم که هر دو سنخِ سوالات ، معنادار بوده و پرسش از آنها ضرورت دارد.
جوششِ کتری، هم به این دلیل است که شعله گاز آن را گرم میکند( توضیح علمی) و هم به این دلیل است که من می خواهم یک فنجان چای بنوشم (توضیحی که مستند به هدف است). ما ملزم به انتخاب یکی از این دو نگاه نیستیم؛ زیرا هر دوی اینها درستند؛ بدون ملاحظه همزمان هر دوی این پاسخ ها حادثه جوشیدن کتری به شکل ناقص خواهد شد. اگر ما صادقانه به دنبال فهم جهان پیچیده و چند سطحی که در آن زندگی می کنیم هستیم هم به نگرش علمی و هم به نگرش الهیاتی نیاز خواهیم داشت.
📙#کتاب «علم و دین، در جست و جوی حقیقت» صفحه ی ۳۵
🖋️اثر «جان پوکینگهورن»
📝ترجمه ی میلاد نوری و رسول رسولی پور
📚نشر « حکمت»
بریده ای از کتاب:
درباره چگونگی ارتباط علم و دین، «یان باربور» چهار حالت را پیشنهاد کرده است؛ این چهار حالت عبارتند از: «تعارض»، «استقلال»، «گفتگو» و «یکپارچگی».
«تعارض» زمانی رخ می دهد که این یا آن رشته معرفتی مدعی می شود که خود تنها منبع حقیقت و فهم درست است یا علم است که گفته میشود به تمام سوالات معنادار و قابل پرسش پاسخ می دهد یا الهیات است که گفته میشود کلید ارزشمند معرفت را در اختیار دارد کلیدی که آن را توانمند می سازد تا پاسخ های معتبری حتی به سوال از چه زمان و تاریخ زندگی بدهد این ادعاها امروزه در هیاهوی بنیاد گران هر دو طرف شنیده می شود. در واقع هر دوی این مواضع نادرست است اعتقاد نسبتاً گسترده ای در جوامع امروزی وجود دارد مبنی بر این که علم و دین در کشاکش ای هستند که نهایتاً به مرگ یکی از آنها منجر خواهد شد این کشاکش از ادعاهای خام هر دو طرف ناشی می شود . علم مدعی است که کاملاً صالح است و دین خود را مطلقاً مصون از خطا میداند،[ اما هم علم و هم دین باید از چنین موضعی عدول کنند] علمِ راستگو فقط به بررسی مجموعه خاصی از سوالات میپردازد (تقریباً سوال از «چگونگی؟» ، سوالی که متوجه فرایند های جهان فیزیکی است) در حالیکه الهیات به مجموعه دیگری از سوالات متمایل است (تقریباً سوال است «چرایی؟» سوالی که با معنا ارزش و هدف موجود در اتفاقات سروکار دارد.) هیچ یک از علم و دین نمی توانند مدعی پاسخ به پرسشهای آن دیگری باشد اما ما به خوبی با این واقعیت مأنوسیم که هر دو سنخِ سوالات ، معنادار بوده و پرسش از آنها ضرورت دارد.
جوششِ کتری، هم به این دلیل است که شعله گاز آن را گرم میکند( توضیح علمی) و هم به این دلیل است که من می خواهم یک فنجان چای بنوشم (توضیحی که مستند به هدف است). ما ملزم به انتخاب یکی از این دو نگاه نیستیم؛ زیرا هر دوی اینها درستند؛ بدون ملاحظه همزمان هر دوی این پاسخ ها حادثه جوشیدن کتری به شکل ناقص خواهد شد. اگر ما صادقانه به دنبال فهم جهان پیچیده و چند سطحی که در آن زندگی می کنیم هستیم هم به نگرش علمی و هم به نگرش الهیاتی نیاز خواهیم داشت.
📙#کتاب «علم و دین، در جست و جوی حقیقت» صفحه ی ۳۵
🖋️اثر «جان پوکینگهورن»
📝ترجمه ی میلاد نوری و رسول رسولی پور
📚نشر « حکمت»
July 3, 2019
Awesome book. I love Polkinghorne's writing style and the way he conveys information.
August 2, 2019
Polkinghorne's writing and thoughts on the science/faith interface are engaging, as usual, and this book provides a great survey of his work over the past 30+ years, with frequent references to his previous works. By way of comparison, I found Exploring Reality to be better written and more original; but with Science and Religion in Quest of Truth we get the seasoned wisdom of this octogenarian giant. Here are a few gems:
"The kettle is boiling both because gas heats the water (the scientific explanation) and because I want to make a cup of tea (an explanation invoking purpose)...If we are truly to understand the rich, many-levelled world in which we live, we shall need the insights of both science and religion."
"If the multiverse is to be truly explanatory, it needs some extra collateral support since without it, attempting to hide a significant particularity in a hypothetical infinity of other possibilities would not amount to an explanation at all...Any needle of significance could be hidden in the conjecture of a significantly capacious haystack."
"There has been much speculation in the discussion of this section. In many ways, the best answer to eschatological questioning is to say 'Wait and see.' The discussion has rested on two solid foundations, however, the everlasting faithfulness of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Polkinghorne does not toe all the evangelical lines (e.g., open theism, post-mortem repentance), yet he finishes the book with a compelling defense of the divine nature of Christ and the Trinitarian understanding of God - the aim of which is "to say enough to indicate that there are rational motivations for these beliefs to which a bottom-up thinker, open to the possibility of the unexpected, should be prepared to give serious consideration."
Polkinghorne's faithfulness to Christ and his relentless pursuit of the unity of knowledge have led to a lifetime's worth of insight. If you have never read him, may I suggest you prepare yourself to give serious consideration.
"The kettle is boiling both because gas heats the water (the scientific explanation) and because I want to make a cup of tea (an explanation invoking purpose)...If we are truly to understand the rich, many-levelled world in which we live, we shall need the insights of both science and religion."
"If the multiverse is to be truly explanatory, it needs some extra collateral support since without it, attempting to hide a significant particularity in a hypothetical infinity of other possibilities would not amount to an explanation at all...Any needle of significance could be hidden in the conjecture of a significantly capacious haystack."
"There has been much speculation in the discussion of this section. In many ways, the best answer to eschatological questioning is to say 'Wait and see.' The discussion has rested on two solid foundations, however, the everlasting faithfulness of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Polkinghorne does not toe all the evangelical lines (e.g., open theism, post-mortem repentance), yet he finishes the book with a compelling defense of the divine nature of Christ and the Trinitarian understanding of God - the aim of which is "to say enough to indicate that there are rational motivations for these beliefs to which a bottom-up thinker, open to the possibility of the unexpected, should be prepared to give serious consideration."
Polkinghorne's faithfulness to Christ and his relentless pursuit of the unity of knowledge have led to a lifetime's worth of insight. If you have never read him, may I suggest you prepare yourself to give serious consideration.
March 1, 2020
I’m always interested in learning how science and religion can coexist. This physicist/priest is an engaging and thought-provoking writer, and I enjoyed his book. However, I don’t have a scientific background and posses only scant knowledge of physics. Therefore, I was unable to fully grasp some of the scientific information he presented. I’d recommend this book to people who have a working knowledge of physics.
July 16, 2016
John Polkinghorne is a physicist-turned-Anglican-priest, and so he speaks from experience in both realms, making his approach somewhat of a rarety among those taking a stance on the relationship of science to religion. Polkinghorne's book is targeted toward the layman, but his precise language and fine distinctions of terms make this a serious read — not something to relax with while drowsing on a Sunday afternoon, but something to read upright, slowly, pondering the points he raises carefully, and if you are like me, taking lots of notes.
Following Ian Barbour's work in "Issues in Science and Religion", Polkinghorne identifies four possible relationships between science and religion: irreconcilable conflict, independently dealing with different domains, in dialogue and complementary but neither complete, and finally interdependent and moving toward integration into a single world view. While he maintains that the complementary relationship is a good starting point, Polkinghorne believes that complete integration is possible when recognizing how similar methods of science and theology actually are. To show how the complementary approach might work, he explores scientific insights and methods that could benefit theologians, and the theological insights and methods that could benefit scientists, as they look together at the same universe. Along the way, he also points out how science rests on fundamental principles that cannot be determined from observation and experiment, but whose origins lie in metaphysical concepts, and how theological concepts rest on human experience where close observation render new ways of appreciating Divine activity.
After reading a number of works by opinionated authors on why science and religion — and even more distressing, scientists and people of faith — have nothing to say to one another — Polkinghorne's serious approach and concern for establishing common ground among all those who sincerly seek the truth is refreshing, and this introduction to his larger body of work well repays the effort required to read it carefully.
Following Ian Barbour's work in "Issues in Science and Religion", Polkinghorne identifies four possible relationships between science and religion: irreconcilable conflict, independently dealing with different domains, in dialogue and complementary but neither complete, and finally interdependent and moving toward integration into a single world view. While he maintains that the complementary relationship is a good starting point, Polkinghorne believes that complete integration is possible when recognizing how similar methods of science and theology actually are. To show how the complementary approach might work, he explores scientific insights and methods that could benefit theologians, and the theological insights and methods that could benefit scientists, as they look together at the same universe. Along the way, he also points out how science rests on fundamental principles that cannot be determined from observation and experiment, but whose origins lie in metaphysical concepts, and how theological concepts rest on human experience where close observation render new ways of appreciating Divine activity.
After reading a number of works by opinionated authors on why science and religion — and even more distressing, scientists and people of faith — have nothing to say to one another — Polkinghorne's serious approach and concern for establishing common ground among all those who sincerly seek the truth is refreshing, and this introduction to his larger body of work well repays the effort required to read it carefully.
February 17, 2017
Actually, I skimmed this book. I like Polkinghorne's thinking--he's a physicist and an Anglican priest--but, it's deep stuff and I wasn't feeling all that contemplative when I had it from the library. Ah well.
July 30, 2015
Whilst nowhere near as qualified as the Author, I also have a background that was originally in Science and am now in Religion (in the sense of being a Lutheran Pastor). This is a reasonable book to introduce to someone to some of the arguments of Intelligent Design - though I do think that the Author sees his view of Intelligent Design as the only one - not even allowing for Old Earth Creationism (and especially ignoring Young Earthers). Whilst he does highlight, especially at the end, the differences between world views/faiths - he seems to be reasonably certain that most Christians would agree with him - which is simply not the case.
Having a more Mathematical background I enjoyed his coverage of Physics and Cosmology - but I admit I still struggle with the macro aspects of Biological Evolution. The Author doesn't seem to see that it has any issues. Whilst admitting that the Science has had major changes from Newtonian Mechanics to Special/General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics (though I do note he does not seem to be a big fan of String Theory / M Theory), he seems to grant Science a far greater level of "certainty" then I think is warranted.
I think his apologetic is aimed more at getting Christians to accept Science, then to argue for Science to accept/allow a place for Religion.
Perhaps the book was too short for him to fully make his case, but I was left feeling that the book was wanting.
Having a more Mathematical background I enjoyed his coverage of Physics and Cosmology - but I admit I still struggle with the macro aspects of Biological Evolution. The Author doesn't seem to see that it has any issues. Whilst admitting that the Science has had major changes from Newtonian Mechanics to Special/General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics (though I do note he does not seem to be a big fan of String Theory / M Theory), he seems to grant Science a far greater level of "certainty" then I think is warranted.
I think his apologetic is aimed more at getting Christians to accept Science, then to argue for Science to accept/allow a place for Religion.
Perhaps the book was too short for him to fully make his case, but I was left feeling that the book was wanting.
May 27, 2012
As Polkinghorne states in the Introduction, this book is a summary and overview of the ideas he espouses in his many previous books. As such this book summarizes why he believes that science and theology are similar pursuits for knowledge. After briefly describing the alternate viewpoints that science and theology are in conflict or that they need to be integrated, he summarizes his case for his belief that they are complementary but cannot really be integrated. He gives numerous references to his previous writings where the reader can get more in depth arguments for the views he summarizes here. This book is not likely to convince someone who has an opposing viewpoint of Polkinghorne's position, but it shows his holistic worldview and directs the reader where to read more.
Polkinghorne has a more rigorous training than any other author I have read to discuss the topic of science and theology. After a prize-winning career as a physicist, he switched careers and became an Anglican priest.
Polkinghorne has a more rigorous training than any other author I have read to discuss the topic of science and theology. After a prize-winning career as a physicist, he switched careers and became an Anglican priest.
January 31, 2018
What a great read! The author weaves together a brilliant answer to the question "can Science and Religion live together in peace?". It is not a quick read. A number of times I had to look up the meaning of the sophisticated terms he uses to support his thesis. But the effort is worth it. I would strongly endorse this work to anyone who is struggling with the apparent conflict between the two. Rest easy ... both search for the truth and as the author clearly states ... the unity of knowledge demands that we all (believers and atheists) accept the undeniable fact that truth is truth regardless the source.
March 31, 2015
Polkinghorne, a physicist, explains how he can be a scientist and Christian without compromises. In short: let science do science (i.e. the physical world) and let theology do theology (i.e. the metaphysical), all the while complementing one another (theology gives us a purpose, science gives us a greater understanding of the universe that God created). This is a good book to get an overview on the subject without getting too deep into either discussion.
November 11, 2015
This is the best book that I've read dealing with the compatibility of science and religion. Some of the heavy science sections I couldn't fully appreciate, but he had so many insightful and interesting points! Polkinghorne is a physicist turned Anglican priest.
October 20, 2015
I enjoyed what I understood from this book. But the majority of the content was way over my head. I did like the section on eschatology!
May 12, 2016
At times this was over my head, but overall it was a thoughtful, intelligent discussion.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews