What do you think?
Rate this book
God, Chance and Necessity
The 'new materialism' argues that science and religious belief are incompatible. This book considers such arguments from cosmology (Stephen Hawking, Peter Atkins), from biology (Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins) and from sociobiology (Michael Ruse), and exposes a number of fallacies and weaknesses. With a carefully argued, point-by-point refutation of scientific atheism, God, Chance and Necessity shows that modern scientific knowledge does not undermine belief in God, but actually points to the existence of God as the best explanation of how things are the way they are. Thus it sets out to demolish the claims of books like The Selfish Gene, and to show that the overwhelming appearance of design in nature is not deceptive.
212 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
8 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
About the author
Keith Ward
154 books53 followersKeith Ward was formerly the Regius Professor of Divinity and Head of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford. A priest of the Church of England and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, he holds Doctor of Divinity degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. He has lectured at the universities of Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 22, 2011
This book addresses in depth the perception by modern materialist philosophers and scientists that science and religious belief are incompatible. While the author questions the materialist viewpoint, suggesting some possible fallacies and weaknesses in that line of thinking, he remains quite respectful, even sympathetic of those he challenges. As a thoughtful critique of scientific atheism, the book
also attempts to show that modern scientific knowledge need not undermine a belief in God. As a person deeply interested in the reconciliation of true science and true religion, this book is very important to me. The answers it proposes to my own philosophical questions and concerns on this issue surpass those offered in any other scholarly books I have read.
also attempts to show that modern scientific knowledge need not undermine a belief in God. As a person deeply interested in the reconciliation of true science and true religion, this book is very important to me. The answers it proposes to my own philosophical questions and concerns on this issue surpass those offered in any other scholarly books I have read.
October 23, 2024
A PRIEST AND PHILOSOPHER LOOKS AT ASPECTS OF THE "NEW ATHEISM”
Keith Ward, FBA (born 1938) is a British philosopher, theologian, priest of the Church of England. He was Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford between 1991 and 2004.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, "After Nietzsche... and Auguste Comte... the way was open for atheists who happened to be scientists to say that it was science and as such that conflicted with religion.... I suppose that in this the atheists are just taking revenge for the assertions believers sometimes make that religious unbelief is the result of ignorance and delusion. Nevertheless, the spectacle of two groups of people, representing the greatest intellectual resources of the planet, calling each other deluded and ignorant, is hardly an edifying one. I have no intention of contributing to it. I think atheists are mistaken, but I do not think they are either deluded (i.e., duped into believing something) or ignorant." (Pg. 8)
He asserts, "The form of materialism [the `new atheists'] espouse is open to very strong, and standard, criticisms, particularly in respect to its virtual total inability to account for the facts of consciousness and for the importance of ideas of truth and virtue... Ironically, their attitudes are often anti-scientific in temper as well as anti-religious, since they... are content to lampoon the crudest versions of the most naïve religious doctrines they can find. Their treatment of religion shows no dispassionate analysis, but a virulent contempt which can only be termed prejudice." (Pg. 12)
He continues, "I should make it quite clear that I accept the view that life on earth, and indeed the whole present universe, evolved from much simpler states. I accept a theory of evolution as one of the major insights of modern scientific understanding, and I think that it enriches traditional religious belief in God considerably. The dispute is about how evolution operates---whether by blind chance or by divine providence... The argument of this book, then, is that a theistic interpretation of evolution and of the findings of the natural sciences is by far the most reasonable, that the specific arguments of [Peter] Atkins, [Richard] Dawkins and [Michael] Ruse on these topics are often fairly weak, and that it is the postulate of God... that can best provide an explanation for why the universe is as it is." (Pg. 13-14)
He says, "When one considers all the elements involved in the Big Bang, it begins to look like an extremely complex event, and not a simple elementary fact at all. So it still seems to stand in need of an explanation. To say that such a very complex and well-ordered universe comes into being without any cause or reason is equivalent to throwing one's hands into the air and just saying that anything at all might happen, that it is hardly worth bothering to look for reasons at all. And that is the death of science." (Pg. 19)
He argues, "I regard evolution by natural selection as a much more insecure and precarious process than seems compatible with the theistic idea of a goal-directed process... I cannot see any way, in terms of physical causes and processes, of remedying this precariousness... the process, while possible, is too unlikely and precarious to be set up and then left strictly to itself by a God who intends rational beings to come into existence... a continuing causal activity of God seems the best explanation of the progress towards greater consciousness and intentionality than one sees in the actual course of the evolution of life on earth." (Pg. 78)
He contends, "it is an essential part of the theistic vision that human life is estranged from its creator and is trapped in the bondage of self-will. But theists see this as a responsible choice that the first humans made... This entails a modification of early religious pictures of life on earth, in the biblical traditions, as having been created without suffering and death, which only came into the world after the selfish disobedience of Adam. Certainly we now know that suffering and death existed among animals long before the appearance of the first human beings... Thus we must understand the death that the first conscious sin brought ... as a spiritual death, a separation from God... Sin... creates a fear of death, now seen not as a natural process but as a possibly final separation from God." (Pg. 89)
He suggests, "it seems virtually undeniable that the [evolutionary] process brings into existence states of very great value (like the appreciation of beauty, moral action and rational understanding), which could not otherwise exist in the same way. This the process is purposive... I have suggested that natural selection alone does not provide a very good explanation of this fact. It makes the whole process highly improbable, is unable to predict what is likely to happen, and gives no reason for expecting any trend towards complexity and consciousness. By far the best hypothesis is that there is a cosmic mind of immense wisdom, creating a system which will shape itself to realise states of value." (Pg. 93)
He proposes, "God is a hypothesis in this sense, that if one commits oneself to a life of worship, this entails the belief that there exists a worthy object of worship... That in turn entails that any created universe will ... be intelligible, morally ordered and goal directed. Consequently, a demonstration that this universe is not rationally ordered, or that it is non purposive or morally cruel or even indifferent, will undermine belief in God. It is clear, then, that theism is falsifiable... It is also confirmable, if the universe, as experienced, mediates... a personal presence; if it is rationally ordered; if it seems purposive; if it seems conducive to the realization of beauty and virtue, understanding and creativity; and if the idea of God seems coherent and plausible." (Pg. 98)
But later, he admits, "the concept of God is not primarily an explanatory hypothesis at all. Its importance for the believer lies in the fact that it is essential to the rational practice of worship and prayer... God is not a scientific theory. God is a personal reality of supreme perfection, to whom persons can be related in knowledge and love." (Pg. 104) He notes, "it is theoretically possible that brains might just develop by chance out of the fact that molecules tend to stick together in complicated lumps. But no collection of physical lumps can add up to even one simple and momentary feeling of pleasure." (Pg. 147)
He states, "there is more than one goal in creation. There is not just one Omega Point, or final state... There are many goals, to be realized at many points in the created processes that form this space-time. The human species has not fully attained the goals proper to it, because of its self-entrapment in egoism and destructive desire. Yet there is a proper sort of fulfillment for human life... that will achieve one goal of creation, even though there may be many others yet to be achieved in the cosmic process as a whole." (Pg. 162)
He quotes a statement of Dawkins, then comments, "From the blind tyranny of purposeless causality, there arises a being that can conceive worthwhile purposes, liberate itself from the shackles of nature, and rise to the freedom and the ultimate good of the contemplation of the beauty of truth. I believe this is the authentic voice of Dawkins... a man driven by a passion for goodness, for intellectual freedom and for truth at any cost. But the question that arises from his own interpretation of the evolutionary process is: why should one care about that? Why should we admire it, or be moved by it?... how can his own views justify it?" (Pg. 185)
He gives a final argument about suffering and goodness: "this is a universe that realizes a very great good... an infinite good... such a good, reached through a process of self-shaping attainment, could not exist other than in a universe in general like this... if there is to be a true communal life ... one will have to share in the suffering as well as the joys of others... Seeing these things, no rational agent would refuse to choose the existence of this universe... If [an innocent child] was fully aware of the reality of God and of the hope of eternal happiness, she would choose life." (Pg. 200-201)
Not really a "scientific" critique of some of the "new atheists," this book will nevertheless be of considerable interest primarily to Christians and other spiritually-oriented persons wrestling with problems of the interpretation of science.\
Keith Ward, FBA (born 1938) is a British philosopher, theologian, priest of the Church of England. He was Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford between 1991 and 2004.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, "After Nietzsche... and Auguste Comte... the way was open for atheists who happened to be scientists to say that it was science and as such that conflicted with religion.... I suppose that in this the atheists are just taking revenge for the assertions believers sometimes make that religious unbelief is the result of ignorance and delusion. Nevertheless, the spectacle of two groups of people, representing the greatest intellectual resources of the planet, calling each other deluded and ignorant, is hardly an edifying one. I have no intention of contributing to it. I think atheists are mistaken, but I do not think they are either deluded (i.e., duped into believing something) or ignorant." (Pg. 8)
He asserts, "The form of materialism [the `new atheists'] espouse is open to very strong, and standard, criticisms, particularly in respect to its virtual total inability to account for the facts of consciousness and for the importance of ideas of truth and virtue... Ironically, their attitudes are often anti-scientific in temper as well as anti-religious, since they... are content to lampoon the crudest versions of the most naïve religious doctrines they can find. Their treatment of religion shows no dispassionate analysis, but a virulent contempt which can only be termed prejudice." (Pg. 12)
He continues, "I should make it quite clear that I accept the view that life on earth, and indeed the whole present universe, evolved from much simpler states. I accept a theory of evolution as one of the major insights of modern scientific understanding, and I think that it enriches traditional religious belief in God considerably. The dispute is about how evolution operates---whether by blind chance or by divine providence... The argument of this book, then, is that a theistic interpretation of evolution and of the findings of the natural sciences is by far the most reasonable, that the specific arguments of [Peter] Atkins, [Richard] Dawkins and [Michael] Ruse on these topics are often fairly weak, and that it is the postulate of God... that can best provide an explanation for why the universe is as it is." (Pg. 13-14)
He says, "When one considers all the elements involved in the Big Bang, it begins to look like an extremely complex event, and not a simple elementary fact at all. So it still seems to stand in need of an explanation. To say that such a very complex and well-ordered universe comes into being without any cause or reason is equivalent to throwing one's hands into the air and just saying that anything at all might happen, that it is hardly worth bothering to look for reasons at all. And that is the death of science." (Pg. 19)
He argues, "I regard evolution by natural selection as a much more insecure and precarious process than seems compatible with the theistic idea of a goal-directed process... I cannot see any way, in terms of physical causes and processes, of remedying this precariousness... the process, while possible, is too unlikely and precarious to be set up and then left strictly to itself by a God who intends rational beings to come into existence... a continuing causal activity of God seems the best explanation of the progress towards greater consciousness and intentionality than one sees in the actual course of the evolution of life on earth." (Pg. 78)
He contends, "it is an essential part of the theistic vision that human life is estranged from its creator and is trapped in the bondage of self-will. But theists see this as a responsible choice that the first humans made... This entails a modification of early religious pictures of life on earth, in the biblical traditions, as having been created without suffering and death, which only came into the world after the selfish disobedience of Adam. Certainly we now know that suffering and death existed among animals long before the appearance of the first human beings... Thus we must understand the death that the first conscious sin brought ... as a spiritual death, a separation from God... Sin... creates a fear of death, now seen not as a natural process but as a possibly final separation from God." (Pg. 89)
He suggests, "it seems virtually undeniable that the [evolutionary] process brings into existence states of very great value (like the appreciation of beauty, moral action and rational understanding), which could not otherwise exist in the same way. This the process is purposive... I have suggested that natural selection alone does not provide a very good explanation of this fact. It makes the whole process highly improbable, is unable to predict what is likely to happen, and gives no reason for expecting any trend towards complexity and consciousness. By far the best hypothesis is that there is a cosmic mind of immense wisdom, creating a system which will shape itself to realise states of value." (Pg. 93)
He proposes, "God is a hypothesis in this sense, that if one commits oneself to a life of worship, this entails the belief that there exists a worthy object of worship... That in turn entails that any created universe will ... be intelligible, morally ordered and goal directed. Consequently, a demonstration that this universe is not rationally ordered, or that it is non purposive or morally cruel or even indifferent, will undermine belief in God. It is clear, then, that theism is falsifiable... It is also confirmable, if the universe, as experienced, mediates... a personal presence; if it is rationally ordered; if it seems purposive; if it seems conducive to the realization of beauty and virtue, understanding and creativity; and if the idea of God seems coherent and plausible." (Pg. 98)
But later, he admits, "the concept of God is not primarily an explanatory hypothesis at all. Its importance for the believer lies in the fact that it is essential to the rational practice of worship and prayer... God is not a scientific theory. God is a personal reality of supreme perfection, to whom persons can be related in knowledge and love." (Pg. 104) He notes, "it is theoretically possible that brains might just develop by chance out of the fact that molecules tend to stick together in complicated lumps. But no collection of physical lumps can add up to even one simple and momentary feeling of pleasure." (Pg. 147)
He states, "there is more than one goal in creation. There is not just one Omega Point, or final state... There are many goals, to be realized at many points in the created processes that form this space-time. The human species has not fully attained the goals proper to it, because of its self-entrapment in egoism and destructive desire. Yet there is a proper sort of fulfillment for human life... that will achieve one goal of creation, even though there may be many others yet to be achieved in the cosmic process as a whole." (Pg. 162)
He quotes a statement of Dawkins, then comments, "From the blind tyranny of purposeless causality, there arises a being that can conceive worthwhile purposes, liberate itself from the shackles of nature, and rise to the freedom and the ultimate good of the contemplation of the beauty of truth. I believe this is the authentic voice of Dawkins... a man driven by a passion for goodness, for intellectual freedom and for truth at any cost. But the question that arises from his own interpretation of the evolutionary process is: why should one care about that? Why should we admire it, or be moved by it?... how can his own views justify it?" (Pg. 185)
He gives a final argument about suffering and goodness: "this is a universe that realizes a very great good... an infinite good... such a good, reached through a process of self-shaping attainment, could not exist other than in a universe in general like this... if there is to be a true communal life ... one will have to share in the suffering as well as the joys of others... Seeing these things, no rational agent would refuse to choose the existence of this universe... If [an innocent child] was fully aware of the reality of God and of the hope of eternal happiness, she would choose life." (Pg. 200-201)
Not really a "scientific" critique of some of the "new atheists," this book will nevertheless be of considerable interest primarily to Christians and other spiritually-oriented persons wrestling with problems of the interpretation of science.\
April 14, 2013
Ward makes a lot of interesting points about the God hypothesis, but his writing is overly formal, boring, and easy to get lost in, which is unfortunate. I probably would not have stuck with it if I wasn't required to.
January 20, 2011
Had a hard time finishing this. Many of the arguments go along the lines of "God wanted it to be this way because this is how it is and it is complicated".
November 4, 2007
Sebagaimana buku-buku terbitan Mizan yang lain, buku ini rumit untuk dibaca, kecuali bagi Anda yang tertarik pada fenomena ilmiah dan keterkaitannya dengan Tuhan semesta alam. Diambil dari kalimat sang maestro, Einstein, "Dan Tuhan Tidak Bermain Dadu", Ward menyuguhkan pemikirannya yang baik secara filosofis dan ilmiah.
Sayangnya, terlalu berat dan akan membuat Anda mengantuk jika membacanya sendirian...
Sayangnya, terlalu berat dan akan membuat Anda mengantuk jika membacanya sendirian...
August 4, 2007
Aku baca versi Indonesianya, Dan Tuhan Tidak Bermain Dadu. Dibeli setelah mengikuti bedah bukunya di Pasca Sarjana UGM.
Enakdibaca dan menarik, Sebuah argumentasi tentang Evolusi Teistik,
Buku ini terakhir dibawa Icha... eh salah dr.icha.
Ya udah deh... semoga berguna
Enakdibaca dan menarik, Sebuah argumentasi tentang Evolusi Teistik,
Buku ini terakhir dibawa Icha... eh salah dr.icha.
Ya udah deh... semoga berguna
September 16, 2008
exactly what i had in mind!
September 10, 2023
Of course there is a God, duh….
W o r d y
W o r d y
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews