Barbour, Ian G. 1997. Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Summary
Ian Barbour is a pioneer in contemporary science-religion studies, writing on the subject since the mid-1960s. His work reflects his background in focusing primarily on physical science and the Christian tradition. This book, mostly a revised version of his Gifford Lectures, discusses interactions between European science and religion in the 17th-19th centuries, proposes a fourfold schemata for relating science and religion, compares methodological underpinnings of scientific and religious truths, explores implications for religion of theory in physics, cosmology, and biology, and concludes with largely theological reflections on human nature, process thought, and models of relating God to nature.

Perhaps the best-known portion of this book is Barbour’s fourfold rubric relating science and religion in terms of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. The conflict model proposes that religious and scientific claims are incompatible and cannot be reconciled; the independence model, while recognizing these differences, proposes that as long as science and religion keep their distance they can coexist, as they investigate fundamentally different questions. The dialogue model suggests that comparison of methodological similarities, exploration of mutually unanswered questions, and discussion of analogically-related truths offer fertile ground for science-religion interaction. The integration model goes further in suggesting that scientific and religious truths reinforce one another, and ultimately point to the same reality. Much of Barbour’s book is devoted to questioning the legitimacy of the widely-held conflict and independence models, and building a case in support of the dialogue model, with occasional support for integration.

In short, Barbour proposes in Religion and Science that we reexamine, via philosophical introspection and a re-reading of history, the common notions that substantive propositions of science and religion are inevitably in conflict with each other, or that the communities of science and religion have absolutely nothing to say to each other. In their place, Barbour argues that there are many areas in which physical science and the Christian tradition can fruitfully interact, primarily resulting in a vindication and partial reworking of Christian theology, and occasionally a sense that scientific and religious truths are one and the same.

Questions
1. Barbour’s perspective, like that of most scholars engaged in science-religion studies, is primarily that of an “insider”: he is a Christian trained in physical science. This has important limitations, yet cannot be entirely discounted. How should “insiders” (scientists, followers of religious traditions) and “outsiders” (scholars in science studies or religious studies) intellectually engage with each other, given their distinct personal commitments?

2. Barbour more or less assumes that science and religion are relatively homogeneous entities. In fact, research in science studies and religious studies suggests the opposite. How ought we to characterize science and religion, given their diversity? Should they be characterized as they are supposed to be, or as they are? How should “professional” versus “lay” appropriations of science and religion be considered? What weight should be placed on their substantive claims versus the social process by which these claims emerge?

3. Our program seeks to “devote scholarly attention to the ways in which science and religion are embedded in, yet seek to transcend, the human experience.” Does Barbour offer any insight into this particular problem? Does Barbour’s work, as typical of contemporary science-religion studies, suggest other important yet relatively unaddressed problems?

Discussion
The seminar featured a dozen faculty participants representing disciplines as diverse as Chicano Studies, Physics, Anthropology, History, and Biology. Given that this was our first faculty seminar, we spent a good deal of time talking about the focus of our Science, Religion, and the Human Experience program, the issue of Templeton funding, and our anticipated outcomes. Discussion on the Barbour volume was as broad as the volume itself. Some of the many issues raised included:

• How understandings and practices of science and religion among indigenous peoples (e.g., uses of experimentation in religious ritual) raise questions about the division between the two in European thought
• Whether or not the practice of science is similar to that of religion in e.g. placing faith on some higher authority (God or reality) or in ceding individual control to a larger entity (the agency of God or the judgment of the scientific community). This issue generated a few sparks, given our intellectual diversity
• Ways in which science as technology has historically destabilized religious traditions (e.g., controversies over genetic engineering of life), paradoxically leading to greater expressions of popular religiosity
• Ways in which religious traditions inherent in a society influence the receptivity of that social group for particular scientific theories (e.g., evolution)
• The nature of consciousness: whether it can be explained by brain function, whether it can be synthesized, etc. This issue proved to be of considerable interest to a number of participants, as it explores an important frontier of knowledge in which neither science nor religion seem yet to have the upper hand
• Whether lay perspectives on science should be considered in understanding what science is, and the related issue of whether scientists stand inside or outside of society in their professional research
• Whether Barbour's "independence" model is a correct depiction of science and religion (this one generated some sparks too

Top of page