The Great Partnership (book)

The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning by Jonathan Sacks
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Book description: Writing with his usual grace and fluency, Jonathan Sacks moves beyond the tired arguments of militant atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens, to explore how religion has always played a valuable part in human culture and far from being dismissed as redundant, must be allowed to temper and develop scientific understanding in order for us to be fully human. Ranging around the world to draw comparisons from different cultures, and delving deep into the history of language and of western civilisation, Jonathan Sacks shows how the predominance of science-oriented thinking is embedded deeply even in our religious understanding, and calls on us to recognise the centrality of relationship to true religion, and thus to see how this core value of relationship is essential if we are to avoid the natural tendency for science to rule our lives rather than fulfilling its promise to set us free.

My review: This is a brilliant discourse on the relationship between science, faith, and religion. It should be read by three groups of people: 1) religious fundamentalists who have rejected science; 2) secular fundamentalists who have rejected religion; and 3) everyone in between.

The author, Jonathan Sacks, Baron Sacks, Kt is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. His Hebrew name is Yaakov Zvi.

In THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP Sacks rejects the extremism of both religious and secular fundamentalists who wish to but an unbreachable barrier between religion and science. And unlike Stephen J Gould's suggestion that religion and science should be kept separate, Sacks argues for a complementarity (a partnership) between them.

This book is one of the most clearly articulated discussions on why both science and religion are necessary to maintain a full humanity and the way in which both need each other to avoid extremism. My finger was almost worn out with all the highlighting I was song on my Kindle. Sacks is very, very widely read, a deep thinker, and yet writes in a beautiful, easy-to-read narrative style making profound and memorable statements simply.

His essential point is that science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. The idea is simple but extremists on both ends of the alleged science vs religion divide have burdened this idea with some very destructive unhealthy nonsense. Sacks is gently critical of both religious and secular fundamentalists appealing for a respectful conversation which, all too often, neither side are willing to engage in.

I can't speak highly enough of this book. It's one of the best I've read for ages. In fact, I nearly didn't read it, thinking that there can't be much more to say on the topic given the myriad books and debates on the topic. But I took the plunge and was incredibly rewarded. If you have any issues regarding the relationship between religion and science - whether you are an atheist or a “believer” - don't miss this brilliant, thought provoking read. It's easily digested meat for the mind!

View all my reviews

Slaying the Dragons (book)

Slaying the Dragons: Destroying Myths in the History of Science and Faith by Allan Chapman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In this lively and often surprising study, Chapman examines popular misunderstandings about key events in the history of science-faith relations. For those interested in science-faith relations, this important study examines popular misunderstandings about key events in history. It covers the major episodes such as Galileo's trial, the Wilberforce-Huxley debate, and the Scopes trial of 1925, but also looks further back through the medieval period to the Classical age, revealing how these events have acquired mythical and misleading statuses. Chapman exposes the facts that have been forgotten and the contemporary opinions that have been supplanted by modern propaganda. Slaying the Dragons is an important book that strips away layers of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. (Amazon)

Very interesting, enjoyable, intelligent, well-written book. Combined with the author's obvious professional mastery of history his witty, passionate, and rhetorically sophisticated (in the positive sense) survey of the alleged conflict between science and religion is potent and entirely believable. Raises serious questions about the alleged war between science and Christianity - a myth held by both atheists and fundamentalist Christians. The best parts of the book are those in which the author stays with exploring the past and antecedents for the present. When he turns to the future and where we need to 'go from here' I found the book a little less engaging. Overall, though, a must read for any atheist or Christian who is willing to revisit their possible distorted myths about the "war" between science and religion.

View all my reviews

 

Book Review: Darwin, Creation and the Fall

Last year (2009) was the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his world-shattering book Origin of Species. Many Christians, particularly those on the conservative end of the spectrum, have had a very difficult time with evolutionary theory as it is considered, by them, to completely undermine the biblical narrative of human origins.

In the book Darwin, Creation and Fall: Theological Challenges, we have a fascinating exploration by a group of scholars who are conservative evangelicals and who accept the current consensus of scientists on the evolutionary origins of humans. Now that is interesting!

The two editors of the book come from different disciplines. R J (Sam) Sperry was Professor of Genetics at University College London 1984-2000. T A Noble is Senior Research Fellow in Theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City. They have gathered a number of writers who, in this volume, explore the relationship between the biblical account of origins and Fall in Genesis 1-3 and the contemporary understanding of origins as articulated by the theory of evolution.

Each of the contributors to the book takes a particular aspect of the issue and describes, and attempts to resolve, some of the challenges once one accepts the biblical documents as authoritative and the modern consensus on evolution. The book begins with a chapter that sets the doctrine of creation in the context of worship of the Creator. This is followed by a historical survey of Darwin’s struggle to come to terms with his scientific discoveries and their theological implications. The next chapter takes a look at Darwin himself and the theological challenges that arose for him as he worked on his science. Another chapter revisits the early chapters of Genesis and discusses the issue of interpreting this text. Following this is a discussion of the concept of original sin and provides some fresh perspectives on the doctrine of the Fall. The last two chapters engage with two theologians — one ancient (Irenaeus) and one modern (Henri Blocher) who have contributed significantly to the discussions of the Fall, original sin, and theodicy.

In the epilogue to the book, the authors affirm the following:

• An insistence that as new information emerges, Scripture, whilst God-given and authoritative, must be re-examined and may require reinterpreting. Christians of a former age had no doubts that the sun moves round the earth and supported their ideas from the Bible …; nowadays we unhesitatingly interpret the passages which seemed to speak of a fixed earth in other ways.
• An awareness of the compelling genetic and fossil evidence that human beings have descended from an ape-like line, and that we are therefore related to other living beings.
• The uniqueness of human beings as the only creatures made in God’s image, albeit ‘fallen’ so that life in fellowship with God is now only possible because of Christ’s redeeming and reconciling death. (pp. 197-198)

The authors conclude that they have arrived at a ‘…position which seems impossibly conservative but also surprisingly radical.’ (p. 198) They warn of the danger of ‘…rush[ing] too quickly to conflate the narrative of human origins and Fall in Genesis and the narrative of human origins given by modern science’, and they acknowledge the necessity of each discipline (science and theology) maintaining their own integrity with each contributing different perspectives on the issues. They arrive at the hypothesis that:

Our prehuman ancestors cannot be called immoral (let alone ‘sinful’) on the grounds that they killed, deceived, behaved promiscuously, and so on. But when God created the first humans, apes now in God’s image, or Homo divinus as John Stott has called them, these creatures, since they were now brought into this unique relationship to God, became moral agents. Although they shared many inherited — including behavioural — traits with their ancestors and animal relatives, this did not mean that they were dependent on or determined by them. Sociobiologists fall into the naturalistic fallacy when they argue that human ethical norms are no more than correlates of our evolutionary history. But the new relationship to God, being in his image, which led to new moral possibilities and responsibilities, was followed by a failure to believe and obey God, and consequently a failure to grow into the spiritual and moral greatness we were meant to exemplify. (pp. 200-201)

This hypothesis demonstrates how deeply radical and conservative the authors’ position is. The main benefit of this book, though, is not so much in the position they arrive at (which, of course, needs to be discussed, evaluated and critiqued) but more in the model it presents for conservative and liberal Christians in engaging both with science and with scripture. It demonstrates an approach which moves beyond dogmatism and the conflation of interpretations of the Bible with what the text may, in fact, authentically mean.

In the concluding paragraphs of the book, the authors write that

It is our conviction that there is no conflict between Holy Scripture and modern science. Indeed the Christian doctrine of creation provided the ground for the rise of science. The idea that Christian faith and science are in conflict and always have been is a myth propagated by Humanists for ideological reasons, but sadly they are helped by sincere Christian believers who think they are defending Holy Scripture when in fact they are doing nothing more than defending interpretations of Holy Scripture which are sadly inadequate. That does not mean to say that all the questions are answered, all the problems settled and all the mysteries resolved. That is never the case in either theology or natural science! Both are ongoing quests for deeper understanding. (p. 204 – emphasis in original)

 Darwin, Creation and the Fall is going to be very tough reading for conservative Christians. Undoubtedly, many will accuse the authors of heresy and blasphemy. If they do, then they will not have seen how deeply committed the authors are to the Bible and to God and how they are determined to give due weight to the biblical text as well as due weight to what we now know about human origins from a scientific view.

And, undoubtedly, there will be those who see these authors as doing nothing more than trying to rationalise their religious beliefs in order to legitimise what many atheists see as an outmoded, irrelevant, and even immoral, system of belief.

But for those of us who want to affirm our commitment to God and struggle to understand that commitment in the context of what we now know from science, this book will be a fascinating journey that, as the authors say, won’t answer every question, but will provide the opportunity to hear from others about a way forward in resolving an unnecessary conflict between faith and science. For anyone interested in these questions, and who are not afraid to think in new ways, this book is essential reading.

Book deteails: Berry, R. J., & Noble, T. (Eds.). (2009). Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges: Apollos.

Technorati Tags: Charles Darwin,creation,the Fall,theology,evolution,science

Book Review: By Design

What a breath of fresh air it is to read Larry Witham's book By Design: Science and the Search for God. Rather than actually arguing about the relationship between science and religion, Witham transcends the debate and considers the history of science's search for God in the intelligent design movement. It's a great story with lots of people with lots of perspectives struggling to prove they are right. The surprise in this superbly told story is that science itself has begun to provide reasons for continuing the debate. Mounting evidence is forcing many to acknowledge that a materialist view of nature is no longer adequate in explaining reality. The need for some 'intelligent mind' is becoming more pressing. Almost every area of science is contributing to keeping this contentious issue alive.

Witham has two aims in telling the story of science and religion's contentious relationship. Firstly, he

summarize[s] the new mood in a series of sketches, venturing descriptions of the events, ideas, people, institutions and controversies that are part of this ongoing debate between science and belief. Another goal is to give the reader a condensed overview of those areas of contemporary science that impinge on the ultimate questions: the origin of the cosmos, of life on Earth, and of humanity especially.

The contemporary rejuvenation of the science/religion debate is represented by two main contemporary cultural developments. Firstly, the conversation between the Catholic Church and the science establishment. Secondly, the intelligent design movement. This movement is a sophisticated network of scientists, theologians, philosophers, and other who want to be distinguished from the creationist movement. They are less interested in proving the existence of God per se than they are to argue that some form of intelligence is a necessary and better explanation for what we know about reality.

Witham is an engaging storyteller. Beginning with the triumph of Darwinism he takes us on an exciting journey down to the present day when what we are discovering increasingly demands a possible redefinition of the boundaries of science. If you are interested in the current state of the science/religion debate, you will find this book an enlightening read.

Book Details: Witham, Larry (2003). By Design: Science and the Search for God.  San Francisco: Encounter Books.

Related Links

• Intelligent Design Theory and the Relationship between Science and Religion
Technorati Tags: intelligent design,science
• Science and Religion (infidel perspective)
• Conflict and agreement between science and religion

'Creation or Evolution? Yes!' (Christianity Today)

Christianity Today magazine have published an interview by Stan Guthrie with Francis Collins, head of the Genome Project, who has also recently published a book entitled, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). In the interview, he explains why he wrote the book:

One of the main reasons I wrote The Language of God was to try to put forward a comfortable synthesis of what science teaches us about the natural world and what faith teaches us about God. Yet it seems to be a pretty well kept secret these days that the scientific approach and the spiritual approach are compatible. I think we've allowed for too long extreme voices to dominate the stage in a way that has led many people to assume that's all there is. The thesis of my book is that there is no need for this battle. In fact, it's a destructive battle. And we as a society would be well served to recover that happy middle ground where people have been for most of human history.

You can read the whole interview here.

The Ends of Science (First Things)

Check out Eric Cohen's opinion piece entitled The Ends of Science for another view on the relationship between science and faith - an enduring issue!! You can read the article here.

"I don't know" - the most important thing to be able to say

Sir John Houghton is a physicist considered to be one of the world's experts in global warming. He was Professor in Atmospheric Physics at Oxford University. He has won a number of awards including Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. He is also a Christian. Have a listen to this interview with PBS's Bill Moyers on the program Faith & Reason where he discusses his views on science and faith. He concludes with the assertion that one of the most important things a believer needs to be prepared to say is, 'I don't know'.

Genesis - literal or symbolic?

On a discussion forum, a poster recently wrote (in part):

If you choose to disregard the first two chapters of the bible in Genesis that specifically state that God rested the 7th day of creation and want to interpret it in a way that you see fit by your own reasoning that is your choice.

I cannot in good conscience - in full assurance of God's grace and acknowledgement of His Sovereignty in creation - forgo His stated word in scripture against the claims" of science. We either are or are not his created beings... sorta kinda maybe doesnt work for me.'

People who criticise those who wish to read Genesis 1 and 2 as symbolic/metaphorical constantly imply that they are rejecting what Scripture says. This is an incorrect assertion. Those who wish to read Genesis in this manner are not suggesting that we disregard the first two chapters of the bible -- the point is that we need to interpret it correctly. These interpreters may be wrong about their interpretation -- but it is important to recognise that they are just as concerned to respond to the authority of Scripture as the literal readers are. (In any case, to describe people as literal or metaphorical interpreters is too simplistic). Augustine once pitted the claims of science that there were humans living in the Antipodes against Scripture. He said it was absurd and impossible that this was so because Scripture didn't teach it. Science proved his interpretation of Scripture wrong. Scripture didn't teach what he thought it did. There was nothing wrong with science in this case. There was nothing wrong with Scripture, either. The problem was Augustine and his interpretation. Too many people only see two components in the alleged warfare between science and Scripture:

Scripture ---------------- Science

They argue that if science says something and Scripture says something different, then Scripture must be right and Science wrong. The problem is that there is a third component that many are unwilling to consider -- the interpreter:

Science -------------- Interpreter --------------Scripture

The issue is not whether Scripture is right about science or not. And it is not about whether science is right about Scripture or not. Scripture and Science are concerned with different issues. The question is whether the interpreter is right about science and Scripture. Science deals primarily in observations of empirical data which must be interpreted to arrive at conclusions -- it's a tentative, dynamic, ever-improving process of understanding. Scripture deals with ultimate concerns and must be interpreted for Christians to come to conclusions. It, too, is a tentative, dynamic, ever-improving process of inquiry. There are two possible issues to consider:

1. The scientist may interpret the empirical data incorrectly.
2. The Bible student may interpret the biblical data incorrectly.

Far too many Christians assume that their interpretation of Scripture is correct and if any scientific statement disagrees with their interpretation of Scripture then science must be wrong. There are two potential problems that need to be corrected:

1. A naive understanding of science.
2. A naive understanding of Scripture.

Both of these problems reside in the interpreter. Here's my approach: I am not a scientist so am unqualified to pass judgment on many scientific findings. Despite the fact that I may understand some aspects of science, I have to admit to not being expert enough to follow some of the complicated reasoning around scientific theories of origin. I have made it my business, however, to study the nature of science (the philosophy of science). In fact, a significant part of my responsibilities as a supervisor of higher degree students is to understand the nature of scientific inquiry. In my view, many of the statements about science made by many, many Christians show a complete lack of understanding about what science actually is and how it actually works. As a Christian, I have been studying the Bible all my life and, as part of that process, have studied the process of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) and so, in comparison, know much more about the Bible than I do about science (I'd like to know a whole lot more!). Scientists need to make sure that they get their side of the story right. Christians need to make sure that they get their side of the story right. Scientists may be wrong in their conclusions. Christians may be wrong in their conclusions. OUR job as Christians is to get our conclusions about Scripture correct. Some Christians need to stop suggesting that, because a fellow Christian says (or implies) that Christians need to make sure our interpretation of Genesis is correct it means they are denying the reliability of Scripture. The implication that interpreting Genesis in any other way than a literalistic, scientific, historical account of origins (in the way 21st century people understand science and history) is somehow being untrue to Scripture is a false implication. In all biblical interpretation, what is important to consider is:

1. the original authorial intent - the purpose of the text.
2. the original historical and cultural context -- understanding the text as the original readers would have.
3. the genre of the text (poetry? history? narrative? etc?)

Open up at least three commentaries (preferably from different perspectives) and have a look at the sections on authorship, genre, culture, and history of Genesis. Discover that these questions are not as simple as we sometimes try to make them appear to be!

Genesis 1-3 contains incredible truth such as (adapted from Waltke):

1. God is the reason and power behind the whole mysterious universe.
2. Human society is in a mess because people have left God out of their reckoning.
3. God is patient and forgiving, but God is also Judge of all disobedience.
4. Fallible human beings can be used to achieve God's purposes.
5. Faith means trusting God alone and following God even when doing so seems crazy.

You don't need to read Genesis as science to believe these important truths.

Moving Past Creationist Roots (Geotimes)

Many Christians adopt a warfare model of the relationship between Genesis 1 and science. Stephen Godfrey, curator of paleontology at the Calvert Marine Museum, has written an interesting personal perspective on this issue in his article for Geotimes, Moving past Creationist Roots. He argues that,

In the end, religion and science do not represent universal opposites. To quote Proverbs 25:2: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; it is the glory of kings to search out a matter.” And from King Solomon: “God has hidden countless fascinating and wonderful things in his creation, and he wants us to delight in discovering them.” So, all those who are called to scientific enterprise should pursue that calling without fear or doubt, but rather with joy and enthusiasm. There is no script that you need to follow, no predetermined conclusion with which your results need to square. If there were, God would not really have “hidden” these treasures for us to find. They’re out there — go get them!

You can read the whole article here.