Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion

Rating:
Summary: Strong Science, Weak Theology
Review: As one who is searching for a philosophy that is able to reconcile my rational/empirical side with my deep sense that there exists the Divine, the title of this book caught my attention. I was looking for a theology that would enable me to pass through the doors of a church without leaving my intellectual integrity on the doorstep; could this book offer such an insight? Well, there was real promise in the first few chapters.

Upon reading the words, "Faith may involve a leap, but it's a leap into the light and not the dark," I remembered thinking, "Yes, he's onto something here." The author goes on to state that neither religion nor science deals simply with pure fact or opinion, they are both part of the great human endeavor to understand. Again, a resounding "Yes" was uttered from my lips. I also found favor with his assertion that it is not the vocation of science to make "value" statements however science does acknowledges that value exists. For example, to science, sound is vibrations in the air, but to the appreciative mind some vibrations may be perceived as beautiful music. Value perceptions are just as much a part of our reality as empirical evidence. This is an important distinction and this point alone could have been the basis of a very coherent argument for the appreciation of each discipline thereby eliminating their fight for a monopoly on Truth.

He does present some other worthwhile illustrations, for example his analogy of prayer to laser light (you'll have to read it) but for the most part the remainder of the book gets bogged down with age-old arguments of mind-body dualism, "proof" of God's existence, the problem of evil, and the literal interpretation of the Resurrection of Jesus. I remembered thinking on occasion, "where is he going with this and what was the original intent of this book?" He makes some rather obvious contradictions and frequently gets caught in the same "God of the Gaps" logic that he rejected earlier in his writings. The book struggles to stay coherent but looses the battle in the final 3-4 chapters. I was left with the feeling that the author's theology was somewhat naïve and would benefit from a good dose of Alfred North Whitehead. Just my opinion.

Rating:
Summary: Strong Science, Weak Theology
Review: As one who is searching for a philosophy that is able to reconcile my rational/empirical side with my deep sense that there exists the Divine, the title of this book caught my attention. I was looking for a theology that would enable me to pass through the doors of a church without leaving my intellectual integrity on the doorstep; could this book offer such an insight? Well, there was real promise in the first few chapters.

Upon reading the words, "Faith may involve a leap, but it's a leap into the light and not the dark," I remembered thinking, "Yes, he's onto something here." The author goes on to state that neither religion nor science deals simply with pure fact or opinion, they are both part of the great human endeavor to understand. Again, a resounding "Yes" was uttered from my lips. I also found favor with his assertion that it is not the vocation of science to make "value" statements however science does acknowledges that value exists. For example, to science, sound is vibrations in the air, but to the appreciative mind some vibrations may be perceived as beautiful music. Value perceptions are just as much a part of our reality as empirical evidence. This is an important distinction and this point alone could have been the basis of a very coherent argument for the appreciation of each discipline thereby eliminating their fight for a monopoly on Truth.

He does present some other worthwhile illustrations, for example his analogy of prayer to laser light (you'll have to read it) but for the most part the remainder of the book gets bogged down with age-old arguments of mind-body dualism, "proof" of God's existence, the problem of evil, and the literal interpretation of the Resurrection of Jesus. I remembered thinking on occasion, "where is he going with this and what was the original intent of this book?" He makes some rather obvious contradictions and frequently gets caught in the same "God of the Gaps" logic that he rejected earlier in his writings. The book struggles to stay coherent but looses the battle in the final 3-4 chapters. I was left with the feeling that the author's theology was somewhat naïve and would benefit from a good dose of Alfred North Whitehead. Just my opinion.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent science and theology
Review: I am a physcis student and I was amazed at the science in this book. I am a catholic and was amazed at the theology. THis book offers a goods look at both indivividually and how they mix. I recommend this to anyone and everyone!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent science and theology
Review: I am a physcis student and I was amazed at the science in this book. I am a catholic and was amazed at the theology. THis book offers a goods look at both indivividually and how they mix. I recommend this to anyone and everyone!

Rating:
Summary: "a leap into the light, not the dark"
Review: I'm guessing that Polkinghorne wrote this book around the same time he was preparing and presenting the Gifford Lectures (1994) as this book and the text of those lectures (published as "The Faith of a Physicist") cover some of the same themes rather closely. While that volume (FP) is broader in scope, this one sets its sights more narrowly. Neither book precludes the value of the other; both are interesting. QC&C is a rather quick read by comparison, so if theology and physics are not your usual cup of tea, this may be the right choice for you.
Sir John Polkinghorne, for those readers who might not be familiar with him, is acclaimed as both a quantum physicist and an Anglican priest/theologian (and he's been knighted [KBE], but isn't everybody on that side of the pond these days?). He has won the Templeton Prize and is a Fellow of the Royal Society. His theological thinking is, for the most part, quite classical, although he conspicuously also holds some process ideas regarding God's relationship to 'time' (this is an area in which many readers -- me, for example -- will respectfully disagree with him). His views are perhaps slightly different from the usual perceptions of the ID school of theistic scientists, which alone might be seen as recommending him as an interesting author.
My impression is that the target audience for this book is the Christian reader interested in the science-religion dialog and in questions of freedom and the 'problem of evil.' But I also think this might be a valuable book for agnostic scientists and anyone else interested in these topics. Polkinghorne says, "Many people seem to think that faith involves shutting one's eyes, gritting one's teeth, and believing X impossible things before breakfast . . . Not at all! Faith may involve a leap, but it's a leap into the light, not the dark. The aim of the religious quest, like that of the scientific quest, is to seek motivated belief about what is the case . . . "
Polkinhorne's style is both highly learned and gentle, balancing confidence with cognizance of humanity's unknowing. He is one of several important voices in the science-religion dialog.

Rating:
Summary: Can a scientist believe in God?
Review: In this short book, Polkinghorne describes how a scientist can intelligently believe in God by exploring the various ways that science reveals God's interaction with the world. I especially appreciated his exploration into God's interation with the world and the issues surrounding God's knowledge of the world. He carefully explained how science may provide a model (through chaos theory and quantum theory) for the "openness of creation," and God's knowledge of such a creation. This is a great book, written relatively non-technically, for those interested in the related subjects of science and theology.

Rating:
Summary: Yes, you can legitimately accept Christ and science.
Review: Polkinghorne has written a clear and simple (but not simplistic) account of how you can be a scientist and still accept the central truths of Christianity. It is concise and straight to the point, but written so that even the non-scientific or non-theologically trained can follow the argument. This would be an ideal book for anyone who thinks that science has `disproved' God. Polkinghorne is one physicist who doesn't think so.

Rating:
Summary: Good, though Polkinghorne has better
Review: Polkinghorne writes a book with remarkable ideas though not without weaknesses. He doesn't view religion as our internal response to an external world, but considers science and religion intellectual cousins, each providing answers. He goes some distance, surely to be misunderstood and misused, in showing the malleability of practicing science "an act of intellectual daring" when viewing fact and interpretation, experiment and theory as independent while they are actually mixed up in perspectives we bring to nature. This is more about scientists as humans than science as flawed. Science invites challenge, inherently policing itself, sometimes scientists do neither. Though bias is present, this is not the end point as open publication, debate and test are always available. Science is refutable. He touches upon absurdities proffered by "modern philosophers" who state we invent theories of nature, we do not discover them. As Polkinghorne notes, our theories wouldn't work if they didn't represent part of the truth. Nature continues to impose itself as final judge, regardless of fashionable politics.

Given that unpictureable electrons provide surprises, Polkinghorne is not surprised to find an unpictureable God to do the same. He accepts the oddness of quantum like he accepts the oddness of Jesus as simultaneously man and God. We're not sure how the oddness of say, astrology, with a longer history, many texts and practitioners may fit this view. To Polkinghorne the issue is not fact vs. opinion but interpreting our experience of the way the world really is, without adding "to us", which without the verifiability science bears, may have less to do with reality outside our minds while much to do with what it means to be human. He views God as "faithful". The natural gift of a faithful God being reliability of his creation's operation. Ignoring tribal aspects of the Hebrew God, God is also loving, thus granting independence, which by itself is disarray, so both order and independence in the universe. "Chance is a sign of freedom, not blind purposelessness." (Take that, Creationists.) "Shuffling explorations of chance lead to deterioration and fruitful novelty."

Does a world with concentration camps look like the creation of a powerful, loving God? With this we meet the "free will defense" the potential for moral evil is price paid for the greater good of human freedom. And what about natural disasters like quake fallen churches killing 50000 in 1755 Lisbon, or cancer? Polkinghorne provides the "free process defense", God faithfully letting nature follow nature's laws. Perhaps violating his own reasoning by allowing answered prayers through adjustments to chaos theory's great attractors, he notes, through "free process", the same biochemical rules allowing evolution also enables cancer. It's a package deal. Natural disasters are not gratuitous, but a necessary cost of life, though not alleviating tragedy of either. Disregarding what need an all knowing God would have for experiential suffering, Polkinghorne supplies the relieving Christian view - God is not simply a pitying, compassionate spectator but a fellow participant in the world's suffering, known through the experience of Jesus.

Rating:
Summary: Honest, lucid, and persuasive.
Review: Simplistic and erroneous thinking about "religion" and "science" is rife in our era. John Polkinghorne sets himself the task of accurately describing the relationship between them. He refutes the usual lazy assumption that the two belong to completely unrelated categories, like walruses and carpenters. Polkinghorne is convinced that in fact science and religion (at least Christianity) both require a similiar method of truth-seeking. He believes that the search for truth in science was influenced by the Christian belief in God, and that the logical connection between believing in a Creator and studying the creation still holds. He thinks scientific metaphors shed light on theology, and vice-versa. Thus, not only is there no conflict between being a scientist and a follower of Christ, the two disciplines inform and supplement one another.

Polkinghorne's words seem to carry a special gravitus. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that he knows his stuff: he was a first-class scientist, physics prof at Cambridge, before getting into theology. Also, in this book, he writes with the kind of restrained simplicity that is good style for scientists writing for the masses, that strongly suggests great intellectual power, sheathed as it were. But probably what gives his argument greatest force is his honesty. The more I read Polkinghorne, the less believable it seems to me that his argument for Christianity might be given either in ignorance or in defiance of the evidence. He might concede too much at times, and he tends to be cautious, but he does not seem to put more weight on an argument than the evidence can bare.

I especially liked what Polkinghorne said about faith and reason. "Many people seem to think that faith involves shutting one's eyes, gritting one's teeth, and believing X impossible things before breakfast . . . Not at all! Faith may involve a leap, but it's a leap into the light, not the dark. THe aim of the religious quest, like that of the scientific quest, is to seek motivated belief about what is the case. . . " While a lot of people (both Christians and skeptics) seem to prefer to define faith as believing something contrary to the evidence, I don't think that is either the Biblical or the historically usual Christian point of view. Polkinghorne's argument on this point stakes out the mainstream of Christian thought, in my opinion.
Readers who would like to think through the relationship between faith and reason, and between various faiths, in more detail, might find my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man, worth a read as well.