- Paperback: 320 pages
- Publisher: SCM Press; 1ST edition (1 Oct 1990)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0334022983
- ISBN-13: 978-0334022985
- Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 1,489,537 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
| |||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Format:Paperback
One's expectations of this volume may well be coloured by the knowledge that the author's earlier work, Issues in Science and Religion, became the standard introduction to the subject for an entire generation. Are we to see his Gifford Lectures as a successor or a supplement to that earlier essay?
There are clear structural similarities between this volume and the earlier one. Gone is the introductory overview of the history of the relationship between science and religion. But the remaining sections parallel those of the previous book (to the point of re using two of the section titles). However, closer examination reveals that this is far from being just a revision of the earlier volume.
Part 1 deals with `Religion and the Methods of Science'. Barbour examines various ways of relating science and religion; the role of models and paradigms; and certainly similarities and differences between science and religion. One peculiarity of this section is his redefinition of theology of nature to mean little more than a broad natural theology. He completely ignores the post-Barthian developments in Reformed theology which have consistently used this term precisely to distinguish their approach from that of natural theology. Also striking, given the contemporary resurgence of orthodox Christianity is the fact that he mentions revelation only in passing.
In Part 2, `Religion and the theories of Science', he concentrates on the developments which have occurred since the publication of his earlier work. His clear intention to provide another broad overview of the subject places severe constraints on how much he is able to say on individual topics. The result is an inevitable sketchiness (e.g. less than two pages on the anthropic principle in spite of its significant implications for religion). At times this verges on the dismissive (e.g. his cursory treatment of many world theories in quantum physics).
This sketchiness also tends to throw his personal biases into sharp relief. For example, his treatment of the Christian doctrine of creation is strikingly one sided. He promotes the alternative reading of Genesis 1:2, omitting to mention that this is a minority view among Old Testament scholars. This allows him to speak of creation as a continuous ordering process rather than a historical beginning. Similarly creatio ex nihilo is treated as an extension of the doctrine of redemption to the natural order, and eschatology is reduced to a mythological extrapolation from redemption. Both creation and eschatology are reduced to symbolic expressions of our trust in God. This is a tendentious reading of biblical and theological scholarship which serves to bolster his preference for process thought.
Again, in the chapter on `Evolution and Continuing Creation', he reads the evidence in such a way as to support process thought. He offers useful summaries of the neo-Darwinian synthesis and current debates in evolutionary theory. Then he interprets the entire tree of life in terms of a hierarchy of levels with novel forms of organization emerging at each new level of complexity. Such ideas are commonplace today, but Barbour departs from the commonplace with his account of sentience and purposiveness. He suggests `that unified entities at all levels should be considered as experiencing subjects, with at least rudimentary sentience, memory, and purposiveness' (p. 173).
The final section of the book is devoted to `Philosophical and Theological Implications', with chapters discussing human nature, process philosophy, and the relationship between God and nature. As regards the relationship between mind and body, he advocates the view that minds emerge from the rudimentary experience of all entities against the alternatives of dualism, materialism, and two language theories. Turning specifically to the place of religion, he dismisses purely naturalistic explanations of its evolution. This is followed by a summary of the biblical view of human nature. Barbour looks to Geoffrey Lampe for a satisfactory explanation of the role of Christ. But the resultant spirit Christology dissolves any meaningful Trinitarianism and implies a subjective approach to atonement. This has the superficial attraction of allowing its adherents to affirm the truths of other religions but it does so at the cost of eviscerating Christianity. In place of the good news that Jesus Christ has acted decisively to transform our human situation we are left with the ambivalent message that we learn from Jesus (and other great religious teachers) how we may work to become co-creators with God. It becomes clear in the remaining chapters that this attenuated Christology meets with Barbour's approval because it coheres with process thought. He presents a simple and attractive picture of process philosophy and then moves on to outline its theological implications. After the manner of Charles Hartshorne he defends process theology by showing how much superior it is to a caricature of classical theism. Significantly he maintains throughout the book a stony silence with respect to contemporary Trinitarian thought. The latter avoids the criticisms of process thought, can maintain a positive attitude to the scientific endeavour, and yet remains true to biblical insights in a way that is not possible for the process school.
Given Barbour's undiminished clarity of style this book is likely to follow its predecessor in becoming a standard textbook. The volume is certainly to be commended as a concise and readable overview of the science and religion dialogue of the past 20 years. However, readers seeking a neutral report of this dialogue should beware of his persistent bias in favour of process thought.
There are clear structural similarities between this volume and the earlier one. Gone is the introductory overview of the history of the relationship between science and religion. But the remaining sections parallel those of the previous book (to the point of re using two of the section titles). However, closer examination reveals that this is far from being just a revision of the earlier volume.
Part 1 deals with `Religion and the Methods of Science'. Barbour examines various ways of relating science and religion; the role of models and paradigms; and certainly similarities and differences between science and religion. One peculiarity of this section is his redefinition of theology of nature to mean little more than a broad natural theology. He completely ignores the post-Barthian developments in Reformed theology which have consistently used this term precisely to distinguish their approach from that of natural theology. Also striking, given the contemporary resurgence of orthodox Christianity is the fact that he mentions revelation only in passing.
In Part 2, `Religion and the theories of Science', he concentrates on the developments which have occurred since the publication of his earlier work. His clear intention to provide another broad overview of the subject places severe constraints on how much he is able to say on individual topics. The result is an inevitable sketchiness (e.g. less than two pages on the anthropic principle in spite of its significant implications for religion). At times this verges on the dismissive (e.g. his cursory treatment of many world theories in quantum physics).
This sketchiness also tends to throw his personal biases into sharp relief. For example, his treatment of the Christian doctrine of creation is strikingly one sided. He promotes the alternative reading of Genesis 1:2, omitting to mention that this is a minority view among Old Testament scholars. This allows him to speak of creation as a continuous ordering process rather than a historical beginning. Similarly creatio ex nihilo is treated as an extension of the doctrine of redemption to the natural order, and eschatology is reduced to a mythological extrapolation from redemption. Both creation and eschatology are reduced to symbolic expressions of our trust in God. This is a tendentious reading of biblical and theological scholarship which serves to bolster his preference for process thought.
Again, in the chapter on `Evolution and Continuing Creation', he reads the evidence in such a way as to support process thought. He offers useful summaries of the neo-Darwinian synthesis and current debates in evolutionary theory. Then he interprets the entire tree of life in terms of a hierarchy of levels with novel forms of organization emerging at each new level of complexity. Such ideas are commonplace today, but Barbour departs from the commonplace with his account of sentience and purposiveness. He suggests `that unified entities at all levels should be considered as experiencing subjects, with at least rudimentary sentience, memory, and purposiveness' (p. 173).
The final section of the book is devoted to `Philosophical and Theological Implications', with chapters discussing human nature, process philosophy, and the relationship between God and nature. As regards the relationship between mind and body, he advocates the view that minds emerge from the rudimentary experience of all entities against the alternatives of dualism, materialism, and two language theories. Turning specifically to the place of religion, he dismisses purely naturalistic explanations of its evolution. This is followed by a summary of the biblical view of human nature. Barbour looks to Geoffrey Lampe for a satisfactory explanation of the role of Christ. But the resultant spirit Christology dissolves any meaningful Trinitarianism and implies a subjective approach to atonement. This has the superficial attraction of allowing its adherents to affirm the truths of other religions but it does so at the cost of eviscerating Christianity. In place of the good news that Jesus Christ has acted decisively to transform our human situation we are left with the ambivalent message that we learn from Jesus (and other great religious teachers) how we may work to become co-creators with God. It becomes clear in the remaining chapters that this attenuated Christology meets with Barbour's approval because it coheres with process thought. He presents a simple and attractive picture of process philosophy and then moves on to outline its theological implications. After the manner of Charles Hartshorne he defends process theology by showing how much superior it is to a caricature of classical theism. Significantly he maintains throughout the book a stony silence with respect to contemporary Trinitarian thought. The latter avoids the criticisms of process thought, can maintain a positive attitude to the scientific endeavour, and yet remains true to biblical insights in a way that is not possible for the process school.
Given Barbour's undiminished clarity of style this book is likely to follow its predecessor in becoming a standard textbook. The volume is certainly to be commended as a concise and readable overview of the science and religion dialogue of the past 20 years. However, readers seeking a neutral report of this dialogue should beware of his persistent bias in favour of process thought.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
5 reviews
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Review Continued
11 July 1998
Format:Paperback
Part Three: Part three of this book is devoted to philosophical and theological reflections concerning human nature. (189) In discussing human nature, Barbour appreciates the evolutionary theory purported by contemporary biologists. He suggests that "in an evolutionary perspective we may view both the human and divine activity in Christ as a continuation of the intensification of what happened previously."(211) In light of this perspective, the goals for the future should include work toward justice, peace, environmental preservation, and empowering persons to understand that their participation in society is meaningful.
At the outset of the book, Barbour revealed his appreciation for process thought as an aid for integrating religion and science. Chapter eight is devoted to a more detailed account of why he holds this appreciation. He begins the chapter by asserting that the twentieth-century view of nature is very different from the medieval or Newtonian views. It is evolutionary and includes a complex combination of law and chance. The twentieth century views nature as interdependent, holistic, multi-leveled, and community based.
Process philosophy has a systematic metaphysics which most closely resembles the twentieth- century scientific view of nature. Whitehead saw his work as an attempt to construct "a system of ideas which bring aesthetic, moral and religious interests into relation with those concepts of the world which have their origin in natural science."(Process and Reality, vi) Barbour notes several elements which Whitehead emphasized: 1. The primacy of becoming over being; 2. The interconnection of events; 3. Reality as organism; 4. A measure of self-creative freedom for each entity. Barbour claims that in Whitehead's metaphysical system, causality for the entity is partly efficient, partly self-creative, and partly final. Each entity is the product of past causes, divine purposes, and the entity's own activity.
The diverse levels of experienc! e described by Whitehead allow for a description of experiences ranging from the least complex (e.g., an electron) to the most complex (e.g., a person or culture). Each type of individual in this diverse spectrum enjoys subjective experience, a notion David Griffin describes as a doctrine of panexperientialism. The author notes that process thought is opposed to dualism and claims that both mental and physical poles exist in all entities.
Barbour questions whether Whitehead's analysis adequately expresses the character of individuals at both extremes of complexity. He believes Whiteheadian categories are inadequate to express the continuing identity of the human self at the upper end. Secondly, the self-determination and novelty enjoyed by the inanimate world at the lower end of the range seem postulated by Whitehead only for the sake of metaphysical consistency. The author believes that a Whiteheadian system could be modified to correct these weaknesses without endangering its coherence.(227)
Continuing his analysis of process metaphysics in relation to nature, Barbour finds many features of contemporary science with which process metaphysics is congenial. However, he notes that the concept of purpose is difficult for scientists to accept. He reconciles part of the dilemma by noting (inaccurately I believe) that process thought maintains that the behavior of inanimate objects can be explained entirely by efficient causation. (It seems to me more accurate to place the word "almost" prior to "entirely" in this sentence).
In opening his discussion of process theology, Barbour notes that God acts as the primordial ground of order and the ground of novelty. In addition, the process God is influenced by events in the world. Barbour mentions again the notion of a dipolar God as advocated by Charles Hartshorne. In this conception, God does not retain all power and thus works persuasively as a participator in creation. God "is not before all creation but with all creation! ," Whitehead asserts. (Process and Reality, 521) In sum, Barbour professes that the Whiteheadian understanding of God is consistent with what we know about biological and human history.(234)
The categories of process thought are also helpful in discussing Christian theology. In particular, categories are available to develop the central Christian notion that "God is love." God's action in nature, in religious experience, and in Jesus Christ can be addressed using a common set of concepts offered by process theology. Process thought illumines the discussion of Christian categories of revelation, prayer, sin, immanence, personal responsibility, etc. Finally, Barbour identifies the contribution process thought makes in discussing the problem of evil.
To begin the final chapter entitled "God and Nature," Barbour discusses the various models of God's role in nature. In his discussion of the monarchical model, he identifies six problem areas: 1. accounting for human freedom; 2. offering a viable theodicy; 3. patriarchal limitations; 4. inclination toward religious intolerance; 5. present evolutionary worldview; 6. the existence of both law and chance in nature.
Following his discussion of the monarchial model, Barbour outlines the advantages and disadvantages of other models including the neo-Thomisitic, the self-limiting God, existentialist, linguistic analysis, and the world as God's body. Barbour summarizes what he feels is the process model concerning the God and nature relationship: a community with one member preeminent but not controlling. He labels the model "interpersonal social."(260) Returning to the six problems of the monarchical model, Barbour shows the adequacy of the model offered in process thought.
The author is aware of various criticisms of process and attempts to answer three. First, he acknowledges that the worshiping community may feel restricted by the dominance of metaphysical language in process thought. However, these limitation! s are inherent in almost any metaphysical scheme. He also acknowledges that the transcendent-immanent God of process thought is limited in power, but believes that conceiving God as limited is a conception that is warranted. Finally, he asserts that the process model, though departing from the classical model, adequately fulfills basic criteria: agreement with the data, coherence, scope and fertility. Barbour believes that the process model has fewer weaknesses than any of the other models he considers and is the most adequate in our attempt to speak responsibly about religion in an age of science.
Short Evaluation: This book reads like an encyclopedia of relevant theological and philosophical convictions in regards to the attempts to reconcile religion and science. The book is also written in a style that makes reading it enjoyable. After reading in the first chapter that Barbour would use process theology cautiously, I was surprised to find him so wholeheartedly appropriating process categories and ideas near the end of the book. Unfortunately, I felt like he was cramming too much in too small of a chapter. He could have fleshed out more of the implications of what a process attempt to integrate science and religion would look like. In addition, I could not agree with Barbour that Whitehead's system was inadequate to account for entities at both ends of the complexity scale. The strength of Whitehead's metaphysic, for me, is that it does offer an adequate means to talk about entities of varying complexity. All things considered, this was an excellent read!
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
A must read, but it sacrifices much for the sake of a comprehensive metaphysic
11 Mar 2006
Format:Paperback
Dr. Barbour is no doubt a brilliant man and a giant in the domain of science and religion. This book is a must read simply because Barbour is mentioned in almost every other book dealing with the topic. He puts forward some very helpful ideas for understanding and relating science and religion, however there are two flaws in his work, one serious and one close to fatal. The serious flaw is the complexity of the book. There are some extremely difficult concepts to wrap one's head around much less apply in any fruitful way. The near fatal flaw in Dr. Barbour's book is that, while he considers himself a Christian, it can hardly be considered so. He rejects a real, space-time fall; original sin; the incarnation (as is traditionally understood); substitutionary atonement; the imago dei (again, as is traditionally understood); the resurrection of Christ; and has serious reservations concerning an afterlife. Moreover, he advocates process theism rejecting God's omnipotence and many other fundamental charachteristics of God's character and nature. If Barbour is allowed to reject all that and still refer to himself as a Christian, one wonders what the difference is between a Christian and anyone else. Liberal Protestants might not have a problem with Barbour, but if you're looking for orthodoxy, you certainly won't find it here.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Wonderful overview of complex issues
8 Nov 1998
Format:Paperback
Barbour does a wonderful job in this book of explaining in layman's terms complex issues in both the fields of religion and science. He explores the overlap and conflict between different theories in each field and shows how the whole "religion versus science" issue is too simplified a summary of two such diverse fields. Barbour comes across as highly knowledgeable in both fields and not at all judgemental. A very good, informative read.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
