Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Best Five Books on Religion and Science: UD Readers Speak

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A couple of weeks ago, over on Biologos, Dr. Ted Davis, a fine historian of science (and one of the few TEs who does not misrepresent the ID position) ran an interesting column.  He invited all readers of Biologos to submit their “top five” books in the area of “science and religion,” i.e., the five books about the relation between science and religion which had most helped Biologos readers to come to terms with the subject.  He asked the readers to indicate very briefly the contents of their top five books and why they found those books significant.

Ted’s column set me to wondering whether or not some of the differences between ID and TE people spring from what they read.  More generally, it set me to wondering what books on science and religion UD posters (whether pro-ID or anti-ID or neutral) do in fact read.

I think an exchange of influential titles might be beneficial for all UD posters, whatever their stand on ID.  It also might help onlookers understand the kind of intellectual stimulants that animate the ID supporters here.  So I’m inviting people here to submit their own “top five” list of books in the area of “science and religion.”

Why “science and religion” rather than “evolution and religion”?  I think “science and religion” casts a wider net, allowing people to mention books which, though not directly about evolution, are about things that can seriously affect our ideas on evolution (e.g., methodology of science, philosophy of science, cosmology).

Here are the guidelines:

1.  They should be books you’ve actually read, not just skimmed, read bits of, or heard about.

2.  The books don’t have to be in essay form (as most ID, TE and Darwinian books are), but can be fiction or drama or autobiography or something else.

3.  They don’t have to be books that you agree with, or that you ever agreed with, as long as you found them very significant in shaping your thoughts and getting you to the level of understanding you are at today.  (For example, if you reject the conclusions of Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker, but found that it gave you a very clear picture of what Darwinian evolution was about, and therefore helped you to think out the relationship between Darwinian evolution and your religious beliefs, you might include it on your list.)

4.  The books don’t have to be directly about “science and religion” — they might be overtly only about science alone, or religion alone, or philosophy alone, or something else — as long as their contents are relevant to, and have seriously influenced, your thinking about science and religion.

5.  They don’t have to be books that are favorable to religion.

6.  “Religion” doesn’t have to mean Christianity in particular, but could refer to any religious tradition, or to views of the world which have religious aspects (such as Marxism, Freudianism, existentialism, and so on).

7.  You should give the author and name of the book, and a very brief statement (no more than 50 words) of what the book is about, and the main things it taught you or got you thinking about.

8.  Don’t reply to anyone else’s “top five” book list with critical comments.  The idea is not to stage a battle over which books are good or bad, but to provide ourselves with a compilation of influential and potentially valuable readings.

9.  Regular columnists here, as well as commenters, are encouraged to submit their lists, if they so desire.

I think this could be a useful exercise.  Fire when ready!

Comments
Thomas, of course you are correct. Please delete Agents Under Fire... if you MUST... :-)tgpeeler
July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PST
The problem of pain - C.S. Lewis In the Beginning Was Information - Werner Gitt The design revolution - William Dembski Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design - Thomas Woodward The Pilgrim's Regress - C.S. Lewismullerpr
July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PST
I see there's a sudden flurry of entries here. I'll keep the thread open until Thursday July 8 at 12:00 noon. All readers of UD are invited to submit five choices, whether they are ID supporters or not. We're trying to compile the richest list of good science-religion works, not just works from an ID perspective. What we want is a list of books that are eminently worth reading for those seeking an understanding of the relationship between science and religion (whether the focus is on evolution or not).Thomas Cudworth
July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST
tgpeeler: Thanks for the interesting list, but you'll have to knock one off.Thomas Cudworth
July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PST
1. The Edge of Evolution (Behe) 2. Philosophy of Science: a very short introduction (Okasha) 3. The Soul of Science (Pearcey/Thaxton) 4. Agents under fire (Menuge) 5. Creation or Evolution? (Denis Alexander)Green
July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PST
The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski God's Undertaker by John Lennox A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization by Dean Overman Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge In the Beginning Was Information by Werner Gitt Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John Sanfordtgpeeler
July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PST
One of the best sources for me was not a book by the list compiled by Coppedge on Believing scintists. The philosophical issues were not that interesting, the people who were living examples were the best "books" on science and religion. See: http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htmscordova
July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST
Thomas - Why don't you make one last top-level thread, and emphasize that it is for all UD readers, regardless of their beliefs, position, emphases, and background? Then give it until tomorrow.johnnyb
July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST
To All UD Readers: The replies seem to have stopped flowing in. We've heard from about 35 people. I know we have many more readers than that, but for some reason, most of them have elected not to put in their choices. I'll give it until Monday, July 5, and then close the thread. After that, I'll summarize the results and present them for discussion.Thomas Cudworth
July 3, 2010
July
07
Jul
3
03
2010
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PST
Bogz/Edgar: Thanks for joining us. Glad to hear from one of our previously silent readers. Your suggestions have been duly added to the master list.Thomas Cudworth
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PST
I am Edgar Rene Nartatez, i’ve followed UD for quite some time now but this is my first time to submit a comment. Here’s my list of the best 5 books on science and religion. Neil Broom, HOW BLIND IS THE WATCHMAKER? – Insightful critique of reductive materialism. Offering a better paradigm of seeing and interpreting nature, and therefore doing better science. Argues that nature has a very “personal” side, suggesting a Personal source. Dinesh DSouza, LIFE AFTER DEATH – Effectively takes on the intellectual pretensions of atheists and atheism. Charles Colson, THE GOOD LIFE – Not a science and religion book per se, but the book does discuss a lot of issues that are pertinent to the debate between science and faith. Has a chapter arguing for ID (focusing on Behe). Powerful book. William Dembski, THE DESIGN REVOLUTION – Effectively responds to questions raised about or against ID. Hugh Ross, THE FINGERPRINT OF GOD – Wonderfully shows how the best and most evidential and empirically based theory on the origin of the cosmos leads to the question of God as the most plausible contender for the source of creation.Bogz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PST
above (and anyone else interested) - For a copy of my paper, email me at jonathan@bartlettpublishing.comjohnnyb
June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PST
above,
3. Saving the Appearance by Owen Barfield.
Lewis makes mention of this book in his book The Discarded Image.Clive Hayden
June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PST
My list of 5 books are: 1. Reasonable Faith by WLC. It's one of the strongest pieces of classical apologetics along with the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. 2. Worlds Apart by Owen Barfield (CS Lewis' close friend and one of the primary catalysts for Lewis' conversion to Christianity. The book is a dialogue between 8 different characters on metaphysics and science. A very enjoyable read. 3. Saving the Appearance by Owen Barfield. This is an exposition of the evolution of human consciousness and specifically the evolution of ideas in Western thought and philosophy. I cannot speak more highly of this book. The freedom of thought that Barfield masters is simply exquisite. He takes you on an intellectual journey that at all you can possibly do at the time you put the bok down is sigh... :) (The term evolution as I am using it here has nothing to do with darwinism by the way) 4. Devil's Delusion by Berlinski. It really is a good introduction to atheism and its pretentions. 5.Questions of Truth by John Polkinghorne. This too is also a very accessible to the average person. I would recommend it for people who have just began exploring the field or science and religion. Very insightful and an easy read.above
June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST
@Johnyb By the way, if you can provide them I would like to read your paper on the defense of the soul as well.above
June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PST
@Johnyb #21 Do you have a copy of your senior seminary paper of the critique of murphy on the net by any chance? Or would you be willing to forward it if that's ok? I wouldn't mind reading it!above
June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST
Thank-you to those who extended a welcome (something I'm not used to where this subject is discussed, quite the opposite in fact!). A couple of comments, queries were directed at me and so I'd like to take this opportunity to respond. First of all, Edson contends that the Bible can be interpreted to support theistic evolution. He may well be right, but biblical creationists would disagree because they base their beliefs on a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. The point I wanted to make was that, if I was a biblical creationist I probably would not be open to theistic evolution. The Qu'ran on the other hand does not necessarily rule out theistic evolution. That said, I should also point out that I rule out the possibility of theistic evolution for purely scientific reasons. I believe the evidence leads us to conclude that life did not make itself and certainly did not evolve as a result of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Furthermore, I believe biblical creationists are on to something. Their timescale may not be quite right but then I believe that the uniformitarian evolutionist timescale is way out. The true age of Earth is not known but if we ever discovered it, I believe it would be closer to the biblical creationist timescale than it is to the uniformitarian evolutionist timescale. Secondly, feebish asks for some examples of scientific content in the Qu'ran. Two that immediately spring to mind are: 1. It describes an expanding universe 2. Its descriptions of the human embryo as resembling "chewed flesh" and a "leech-like clot" More examples are discussed in an online taster of Maurice Bucaille's book. This can be found at: http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.htmlChris Doyle
June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PST
Zach Bailey @63
On page 24, the Dalai Lama writes: …in Buddhism scriptural authority cannot outweigh an understanding based on reason and experience. In fact, Buddha himself, in a famous statement, undermines the scriptural authority of his own words when he exhorts his followers not to accept the validity of his teachings simply on the basis of reverence to him. Just as a seasoned goldsmith would test the purity of his gold through a meticulous process of examination, the Buddha advises that people should test the truth of what he has said through reasoned examination and personal experiment.
It was nothing specifically (like that quote) that made me put the book down. In general, there are alot of those sorts of propostitions and exhortations in pantheistic philosphy. I do not mean to be offensive to any pantheists out there, I just find it rather boring. The reason being that all they are really advocating (though they do not seem to perceive it) is a robust and disciplined Christian worldview.Lock
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PST
allanius,
My guess is that the five most influential books on this subject (outside of the Bible) would be Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, Descartes’ Meditations, Newtons’ Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of the Species.
That's a good list. I've actually gone through The Origin of Species and noted every instance Darwin mentioned something religious, and, if I remember right, there were about 72 overtly religious statements.Clive Hayden
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST
It's hard to narrow it down to just five books, but here goes: 1. The Bible. It's not a science textbook but when it touches on science, it's accurate. 2. Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe. Probably my introductory book to the ID-evolution debate. He makes a good point when he states that Paley's 'watchmaker' analogy was never disproven. It was disregarded when evolution came into vogue, but it was never disproven. And probably never will be disproven, either. 3. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton. The author is an agnostic, but he shows clearly how Darwinism has gone from a scientific theory to an ideology. He even gets hate mail from Richard Dawkins! 4. Nature's Destiny, by Michael Denton. An eloquent and elegant book detailing the anthropic principle and its argument for design. The second chapter on water ("The Vital Fluid") is eye-opening. 5. Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science, by Cornelius Hunter. The author gives arguments regarding ID and evolution from both sides and shows the philosophical weaknesses of the Darwinian paradigm.Barb
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST
allanius: It's not the books that have been influential on the world at large that we're asking about, but the books that have been most influential on *you*. Of all the books that you've read bearing on the subject "science and religion" (emphasis on the AND), which five have made the strongest impression on you?Thomas Cudworth
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PST
"and those that exist must be approached cautiously (Kepler’s argument, such as it was, can’t be applied intelligibly to the universe as we now know it)" This seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of people, and I'm not sure why. I think that people think that if an idea is based on religion, for it to be validly based on religion, it must continue to hold for all time. I don't agree. I think the interesting thing comes when relgion helps you move forward, even when you aren't totally correct. For instance, moving from the conception of planets following pre-ordained paths to the conception of planets moving because of interactions between the planets meant moving to a very tenuous conception of the solar system. Well, what keeps it going then? For Newton, it was God, who adjusted it when things went wrong. I no of no one, Christian or otherwise, who would side with Newton on this point. Nonetheless, I think it is an important fact that Newton's *ability* to leave some of the details to God was perhaps indispensible for his ability to conceive of his ideas. Likewise, for many atheists/agnostics, the idea of a beginning was unconceivable. But for LeMaitre, the beginning was not unconceivable. Whether or not LeMaitre is right in the end is not so relevant as the fact that his belief in God helped to move things forward. And I'm sure there are cases where it moves things backwards, too. But I don't think that's a reason to not make use of it. Many things have the ability to harm and help depending on how they are used.johnnyb
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST
Ted - A good critique. I was, indeed, unduly harsh. Polkinghorne and Schroeder have actually been somewhat inspiring/helpful to me at times, too. The problem, though, to better describe where I'm coming from, is that there is little in the way, from many of these authors, of doing anything real with religion. To get some background, I have just graduated from seminary with a Master of Theology. The most dreadful thing that I saw, over and over again, was that the idea was that science talked *to* religion, and religion just had to take it. The only other approach was to redefine the realms of science and religion such that they had no overlap (but of course this doesn't really work with Christianity as it is practiced or science as it is practiced). No one, in the entire faculty or in the books I read, had any concept that religion could aid science as a practical matter. A few of them had shown how religion had aided science in the past, but none of which showed how that might be relevant today. There are a number of theories in the past with strong theological content - the Big Bang, for instance - researched by a Catholic Priest that *surprise* showed evidence for a beginning along the line of Thomas Aquinas. Several works may acknowledge this on one hand, but then find no practical application of theology to modern problems in science. Clouser's "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" was one of the few works to take this seriously. Hunter's "Darwin's God" does this to some extent, but Hunter, as most authors, fails to provide a prescriptive path (though I still haven't finished Science's Blind Spot - perhaps he covers it there). My senior paper for seminary was a combined defense of the soul plus some suggestions for how the functions of the soul could be integrated into a rigorous scientific framework in cognitive science. Unfortunately, there exists no good work on religion and science that I am aware of (save Clouser) which provides *guidance* to the scientist based on religion. My interest in finding a good historical work, especially on Carver, but some of the others you suggest might be helpful, is because if there isn't a good guide available, at least some principles might be inferred from history.johnnyb
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PST
My guess is that the five most influential books on this subject (outside of the Bible) would be Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, Descartes’ Meditations, Newtons’ Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of the Species.allanius
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PST
johnnyb (#62) is disappointed with some of the best authors (IMO), and I won't try to persuade him to take a different view. If he doesn't find someone like Polkinghorne both imaginative and helpful, rather absolutely dreadful rubbish, then we clearly have very different criteria for identifying the best books about science and religion. I want to say something about this part of his post, however: "What I want out of a science-and-religion book is to find one which will use religion to *guide* science, rather than the other way around. For instance, if Schroeder were to have written his “Science of God” book 40 years ago, he would have had to have written a very different book. Why? Because a project that shows after-the-fact how science and religion match up will have to change each time the science changes. What I would like to read, and would love to hear a suggestion, would be a book on how scientists like George Washington Carver used their faith in their scientific work." The concern here seems clearly stated; I hope I haven't misunderstood him. Johnny seems to want some good historical studies (I say this b/c of his reference to Carver as an example) of how religious faith has influenced scientific work, per se. Actually there's a fair amount of literature on this general topic; numerous examples are found in the book by John Brooke on my list. Geoffrey Cantor's biography of Michael Faraday would be another good example. I did an article on Boyle that might fall into this category, as well, depending on how one looks at it. There are lots of ways to look at it. I can't think right now of many situations in which (for example) a specific religious idea (such as a passage in the Bible or a belief about God's character) led more or less directly to a specific scientific hypothesis or discovery--though Matthew Maury might be an example (I'd want to study it more carefully before rendering a verdict), and Kepler's acceptance of the Copernican theory (which he saw as revealing the Triune God in the structure of the cosmos) would be another. If that's what you want, johnny, you'll probably remain pretty frustrated, for there aren't many examples like this--and those that exist must be approached cautiously (Kepler's argument, such as it was, can't be applied intelligibly to the universe as we now know it). If however you are asking for literature about how religious beliefs & practices underlie key aspects of modern science and its history, that's another story. For example, there are theological roots to the modern attitude that nature is a contingent order, which must be studied through a method of rational empiricism. Or, a religious belief (namely, that God has created a unified world) can motivate a scientist to look for connections between diverse phenomena (such as electricity, magnetism, and light) that others would not seek. Generally, I would say that one can find connections between religious beliefs and certain foundational questions, such as: Is a science of nature possible? If so, why? (Polkinghorne has written effectively about that one.) Why should science be done? (Boyle and Polkinghorne have written effectively about that one.) How should science be done? (Boyle again) What sorts of theories are acceptable? (Perhaps this is where ID has something to say?) Do these kinds of things count as using one's faith in doing science? Even if someone else doesn't need to have the same faith in order to come out in the same place? (Some modern scientists lack religious faith, but they accept the contingent nature of nature for other reasons.)Ted Davis
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PST
Thomas - To support the UD site, you might set it up as an Amazon AStore. You can check out mine here.johnnyb
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST
Allen MacNeill, scordova, gpuccio, Rude, jerry, allanius, Nakashima, and all the other regulars: We'd love to add your top-five lists to the growing pile. When it's done, I hope to get the whole thing up on the web somehow, as a recommended readings list that many people, whether ID supporters or not, might find useful.Thomas Cudworth
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PST
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.tragic mishap
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PST
Lock:
I started to read ‘The Universe in a Single Atom’ by the Dalai Lama a few years back, but I put it down almost as fast I as picked it up. I can’t even remember why… so perhaps I should not have mentioned it.
On page 24, the Dalai Lama writes:
...in Buddhism scriptural authority cannot outweigh an understanding based on reason and experience. In fact, Buddha himself, in a famous statement, undermines the scriptural authority of his own words when he exhorts his followers not to accept the validity of his teachings simply on the basis of reverence to him. Just as a seasoned goldsmith would test the purity of his gold through a meticulous process of examination, the Buddha advises that people should test the truth of what he has said through reasoned examination and personal experiment.
Zach Bailey
June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PST
Steve and Thomas - For myself, the reason why I didn't include much in the way of straight science-and-theology books is that most of them are, as far as I'm concerned, rubbish. There are a few gems in the dust, such as "The Myth of Religious Neutrality," but most of the books are absolutely dreadful. Most of the books try to do one of the following things, all of which, I think, are unimaginative and unhelpful: 1) Show (or assume) that science is true, and then try to interpret religion from that basis, from one of the following perspectives: 1a) everything is physics, but that's okay because that's not incompatible with God (i.e. Murphy) 1b) all matter is spiritual, so we can keep the continuity of the cosmos without sacrificing our spiritual nature (i.e. Swimme and Berry) 1c) there is a spiritual dimension, but it is always on the outskirts, such that it will not impact science in any rigorous way (i.e. Polkinghorne) 2) Try to show that the findings of today's science are consistent with a pre-revealed worldview (i.e. Schroeder) What I want out of a science-and-religion book is to find one which will use religion to *guide* science, rather than the other way around. For instance, if Schroeder were to have written his "Science of God" book 40 years ago, he would have had to have written a very different book. Why? Because a project that shows after-the-fact how science and religion match up will have to change each time the science changes. What I would like to read, and would love to hear a suggestion, would be a book on how scientists like George Washington Carver used their faith in their scientific work. *That* would be a science-and-religion book worth reading.johnnyb
June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply