Questions of Truth

Last updated
Questions of Truth
Questions of Truth - book cover.jpg
Author Polkinghorne, John
Beale, Nicholas
CountryUnited States
Language English
Subject Science and religion, theology
GenreNon-fiction
Publisher Westminster John Knox
Publication date
2009
Media typePrint
ISBN 0-664-23351-1
OCLC 229467436
215 pp.
LC Class BT77 .P65

Questions of Truth is a book by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale which offers their responses to 51 questions about science and religion. The foreword is contributed by Antony Hewish.

Contents

The book was launched at a workshop at the 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in Chicago, [1] and then in the UK at a discussion at the Royal Society chaired by Onora O'Neill, in a week when it was also featured on the Today Programme. [2]

Key themes and ideas

Launch at 2009 AAAS Annual Conference with President James J. McCarthy (standing) and authors AAAS Launch workshop1 m.JPG
Launch at 2009 AAAS Annual Conference with President James J. McCarthy (standing) and authors

The book grew out of questions generated at a website organized to communicate Polkinghorne's ideas. It groups selected questions under seven topics: [3]

Each question is followed by the responses of Beale and Polkinghorne, sometimes as a single answer and sometimes by the two authors individually. Its three appendixes constitute a third of the book: [3]

Reviews

Julian Baggini, writing in the Financial Times , said that Polkinghorne has no problems reconciling his faith with his science and suggests that "despite the complexity of some of the scientific issues discussed", the book "is a commendably clear read". He says "it is a pity that the people most likely to buy this book are those simply seeking intellectual reassurance that their faith is not irrational. Those who would most benefit from reading it are in fact fundamentalists who think that evolutionary science must be wrong, and overconfident atheists who believe that the religious are manifestly irrational.” [5] [6]

A. C. Grayling wrote a highly critical review in the New Humanist . He states that the responses to questions concerning science and religion boil down to three strategies, God of the gaps, inference to the best explanation, and religion and science explain truths in different domains. He considers the first two refutable by undergraduates, and for the third strategy to work, he contends that one has to "cherry-pick which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic and which as literally true" in order to conveniently avoid the possibility of direct and testable confrontation with science. He concludes the review by expressing his outrage at the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of the book, as in his opinion this amounts to having "the superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research." [7]

Physics World commends the authors for handling the diverse readership, skeptics and believers, in a "remarkably even-handed way", but laments that concerns with specifics of Christian doctrine may limit the book's appeal; however, scientifically minded readers may find the extensive appendices a good starting point. The reviewer concludes that the book provides valuable insight for those interested in the science and religion debate. [3]

In addition, some periodicals have included brief reviews. Publishers Weekly said, "Many readers will welcome this accessible format, but some may find the blurring of science and theology confusing." [8] The Library Journal described it as intriguing and thought-provoking work, and said that John Polkinghorne was “a kind of antidote to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for the intellectual theist or Christian." [9] Episcopal Life says the book offers "some interesting conclusions". [10] Ian Sample, reflecting over his interview with Polkinghorne for The Guardian , stated that there was much in the book that he found offensive, especially the idea that God needs to remain hidden from his creation lest they be completely overwhelmed, a notion Sample describes as "a bit patronising". [11]

Notes and references

  1. AAAS Annual Meeting 2009 Workshop Program Archived March 4, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  2. Interview with John Polkinghorne by John Humphrys BBC Today Programme 2-Mar-09
  3. 1 2 3 One Scientist's Faith Archived April 15, 2009, at the Wayback Machine review in Physics World April-2009
  4. Sahgal, Gita. "Truth theory". Indian Times. Retrieved September 4, 2016.
  5. Julian Baggini "A Twist of Faith: How to reconcile religious belief with science" Financial Times Life and Arts, p.16, 21 Feb.,'09.
  6. see also Baggini's additional comments on his talkingphilosophy site and the subsequent discussion
  7. A. C. Grayling: Book Review: Questions of Truth. New Humanist 124 (2), March/April 2009.
  8. Publishers Weekly Review
  9. Library Journal Review Archived March 5, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  10. Episcopal Life 3-Mar-09 Archived March 12, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  11. Sample, Ian (9 April 2009). "Can science be used to prove the existence of God?". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 January 2010.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between religion and science</span>

The relationship between religion and science involves discussions that interconnect the study of the natural world, history, philosophy, and theology. Even though the ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion", certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The pair-structured phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in the literature during the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries—partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization. Since then the relationship between science and religion has been characterized in terms of "conflict", "harmony", "complexity", and "mutual independence", among others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Polkinghorne</span> Physicist and priest (1930–2021)

John Charlton Polkinghorne was an English theoretical physicist, theologian, 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.

Frank Jennings Tipler is an American mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. Tipler has written books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine. His work has attracted criticism, most notably from Quaker and systems theorist George Ellis who has argued that his theories are largely pseudoscience.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in theology, the philosophy of religion, and popular culture. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alister McGrath</span> Northern Irish theologian, Anglican priest, and academic (born 1953)

Alister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, Anglican priest, intellectual historian, scientist, Christian apologist, and public intellectual. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion, and is a fellow of Harris Manchester College at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005.

In philosophy, theophysics is an approach to cosmology that attempts to reconcile physical cosmology and religious cosmology. It is related to physicotheology, the difference between them being that the aim of physicotheology is to derive theology from physics, whereas that of theophysics is to unify physics and theology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John F. Haught</span> American theologian

John F. Haught is an American theologian. He is a Distinguished Research Professor at Georgetown University. He specializes in Roman Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to physical cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and Christianity.

Cosmological natural selection, also called the fecund universes, is a hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin intended as a scientific alternative to the anthropic principle. It addresses the problem of complexity in our universe, which is largely unexplained. The hypothesis suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest of scales. Smolin published the idea in 1992 and summarized it in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos.

Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications. Criticisms include positions based on the history of science, philosophical and logical criticisms, findings in both the natural and social sciences, theistic apologetic arguments, arguments pertaining to ethics and morality, the effects of atheism on the individual, or the assumptions that underpin atheism.

<i>The God Delusion</i> 2006 book by Richard Dawkins

The God Delusion is a 2006 book by British evolutionary biologist and ethologist Richard Dawkins. In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." In the book, Dawkins explores the relationship between religion and morality, providing examples that discuss the possibility of morality existing independently of religion and suggesting alternative explanations for the origins of both religion and morality.

Karl Willard Giberson is a Canadian physicist, scholar, and author, specializing in the creation–evolution debate. He has held a teaching post since 1984, written several books, and been a member of various academic and scientific organizations. He formerly served as vice president of the BioLogos Foundation.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to modern versions of the argument from design for the existence of God. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 of his 2006 book The God Delusion, "Why there almost certainly is no God".

The reaction of Jewish leaders and organizations to intelligent design has been primarily concerned with responding to proposals to include intelligent design in public school curricula as a rival scientific hypothesis to modern evolutionary theory.

<i>Darwins Angel</i>

Darwin's Angel is a book published in response to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. It was written by John Cornwell and subtitled An Angelic Riposte to The God Delusion.

<i>God: The Failed Hypothesis</i> Book by Victor J. Stenger

God: The Failed Hypothesis is a 2007 non-fiction book by scientist Victor J. Stenger who argues that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that God's existence, while not impossible, is improbable.

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap. He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria." Some have criticized the idea or suggested limitations to it, and there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.

<i>The Grand Design</i> (book) 2010 popular science book by Stephen Hawking

The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe and explains eleven-dimensional M-theory. The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory may not exist.

<i>The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity</i>

The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity is a reference work in science and religion, edited by James B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett, and published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2012. It contains 54 new essays written by an international list of 55 authors, many of them leading scholars in the discipline of science and religion, and others new or up-and-coming voices in the field. The editors claim, "We are seeking to introduce and advance serious thinking and talking about science and Christianity, particularly as they interconnect. We are reflecting on the work of scientists and theologians, trying to find points of contact and points of tension which help to illuminate these practices and doctrines in clear, scholarly light." The book has received positive reviews in Choice, Reference Reviews, Themelios and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The article by Sean M. Carroll generated significant attention when it was discussed on the Huffington Post.

Although biological evolution has been vocally opposed by some religious groups, many other groups accept the scientific position, sometimes with additions to allow for theological considerations. The positions of such groups are described by terms including "theistic evolution", "theistic evolutionism" or "evolutionary creation". Of all the religious groups included on the chart, Buddhists are the most accepting of evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and all life within, and that biological evolution is a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization of scientists:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution and geological evolution plus chemical evolution and biological evolution — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Evolutionary theodicies are responses to the question of animal suffering as an aspect of the problem of evil. These theodicies assert that a universe which contains the beauty and complexity this one does could only come about by the natural processes of evolution. If evolution is the only way this world could have been created, then the goodness of creation is intrinsically linked to the pain and evil of the evolutionary processes.