Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation

This book is only about 200 pages, but I was frankly pretty spent by the time I reached the end, not because the writing isn't clear (it is), but rather because the material is inherently challenging. And how could it not be? After all, we're talking about the big questions, for which no one has definitive answers. To be more specific, John Haught clearly knows his science and his theology, and this book provides a rather sophisticated and intense exploration of the relationship between the two (even though he modestly describes the book as only an "introduction" and a "prologue to conversation"). He frames his exploration by making the strongest case he can for four different views: 1. The Conflict view argues that science and religion can't be reconciled, and science has a vastly stronger evidential basis, so religion should be disregarded. 2. The Contrast view argues that science and religion ask different kinds of questions and use different methods, so they occupy different spheres and can't come into conflict, even in principle, unless they're mistakenly conflated or trespass into each other's domains (eg, when science drifts into the metaphysical pretensions of materialistic reductionistic scientism, or when religion tries to discern the order of the natural world). 3. The Contact view argues that a rigid boundary between science and religion is both naive and unproductive, and that science and religion, though distinct endeavors, should enter into dialogue to try to learn from each other, especially in the direction of religion evolving with advances in scientific understanding (eg, in physics, cosmology, and evolutionary theory). 4. The Confirmation view goes further and argues that science and religion are fundamentally engaged in the same quest for deep understanding of reality and existence, so they should work together harmoniously. Religion should thus gladly encourage and appreciate scientific research, no matter where it leads, while science should recognize that it shares religions's faith and trust that reality is indeed substantially intelligible. Haught lays out his main findings from this framework in the first chapter, so this chapter is almost a summary of the book. The remaining eight chapters then apply this framework to more specific questions (Was the universe created? Why is there complexity in nature? Etc.). Haught goes into quite some detail, weilding all sorts of plausible arguments and counterarguments to the extent that I sometimes felt dizzy. Applying the four-views "debate" format to each chapter does result in significant repetition, but I think the pros of this format outweigh the cons. One significant limitation is that, for the purposes of the book, Haught takes "religion" to mean the Abrahamic religions in a general sense, and he takes God to mean their shared conception of a personal God. This of course leaves out both more specific and more general understandings of religion and God, and it

The title of this book aptly describes what has been happening more and more in the relationship between science and religion since the publication of Ian Barbour's Issues in Science and Religion in 1966. Fortunately, as John Polkinghorne has pointed out in his work, Belief in God in an Age of Science: "Only in the media, and in popular and polemical scientific writing, does there persist the myth of the light of pure scientific truth confronting the darkness of obscurantist religious error." I find this an excellent introduction for non-experts (such as myself or college students) to the central issues in science and religion today. The author has been teaching a course in science and religion at Georgetown University for more than 25 years. This is perhaps why reading the book feels like participating in a debate in a university classroom. The fact that each chapter has as its title a crucial question contributes to this experience. For example, "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" is the title of chapter one. Then the question is analyzed under each of the four basic approaches that have been tried to relate science and religion: 1) conflict, 2) contrast, 3) contact, and 4) confirmation. Even though professor Haught clearly favors the contact and confirmation approaches, he does an excellent job in explaining with authenticity the other perspectives. This feature of the work will definitely induce discussion and debate in a classroom setting.

There are two kinds of textbooks for a course on science and religion. One is the book that tells you everything you need to know. Ian Barbour and Holmes Rolston III have produced marvelous examples. The other is the book that invites the reader deep into the issues at stake, with just enough information to make those issues clear. This second kind of book usually needs supplementary sources of information. Haught's book is of this kind, and is outstanding of the type. I know because I use it in my own classes. By presenting each issue from four different viewpoints, the book allows a reader to identify her or his own position, in relation to possible alternatives. The reader has to sort through the pros and cons given by proponents of the four positions. So the student is propelled to a critical evaluation of alternataives. Haught provides many samples of ideas from contemporary thinkers, both religious and decidedly unreligious. The samples open the way to using more material from these primary sources, all in the context of the arguments and reasonings presented in the book. It is an excellent educational tool. END

I have read quite a few books in the general area of science and religion, including many of the currently popular general interest books written by professional scientists, who often touch on the topic of religion. Haught is not a professional scientist, although he is very familiar with modern science. He is however well schooled in modern philosophy and theology. Haught's recently published "Science and Religion" is an eloquent treatment of the tensions at the interface of these two disciplines. It is arguably the best book that I have read on this subject.The book addresses the following nine questions, with one chapter devoted to each:1. Is religion opposed to science? 2. Does science rule out a personal God? 3. Does evolution rule out God's existence? 4. Is life reducible to chemistry? 5. Was the universe created? 6. Do we belong here? 7. Why is there complexity in nature? 8. Does the universe have a purpose? 9. Is religion responsible for the ecological crisis?This book structures its discussion of these nine questions as a "debate" between four distinct schools of thought, which Haught terms conflict, contrast, contact and confirmation. Scientific and philosophic concepts introduced in ensuing discussion are explained clearly, so that the book is accessible to nonspecialists.The "conflict" school of thought holds that modern science is irreconcilably opposed to religion. Skeptical scientists of this persuasion, including the likes of Dennett, Hawking and Weinberg, argue that modern science has indeed hit the final nail into the coffin of theistic religion. The Copernican revolution removed humans from the center of existence to an obscure speck in an unimaginably large and hostile universe. Newton showed that the universe is governed by natural law, not by continual supernatural intervention. Darwin demonstrated that living organisms on earth arose through a natural process over many millions of years. Quantum mechanics revealed the laws gov! erning the world of subatomic particles. Einstein removed any vestige of absolute space and time. Big bang cosmology removed any lingering need for a Creator. Thus it is no longer intellectually possible to accept modern science and still believe in God.Ironically, this "conflict" point of view is shared by many religious fundamentalists. In a defense of their faith, some are determined to overturn conventional scientific theories, replacing this body of knowledge with an alternative version that they call "creation science".The "contrast" school argues that most, if not all, of the tension between modern science and religion is unnecessary, stemming from a persistent failure over the past few centuries to recognize the separate domains of science and religion. Those advocating this view cede to science the outward description of the physical world, including the processes by which it came to be, but reserve for religion questions such as the nature of God and the meaning of existence.