lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (05/03/84)
I was just gearing up for a couple of book reports when Dave Norris
made the suggestion that we post some. I have looked at many books as a
result of various net discussions, but I usually get so tangled up
in the resultant ruminations that I give up trying to report them to
the net. I'll try to muddle through a few.
SCIENCE PONDERS RELIGION , copyright 1960 is a collection of essays on
various topics, edited by Harlow Shapeley. I have looked at only a few
of the essays, and I even skipped parts of these. Nevertheless, I saw a
lot that is relevant to recent net discussions.
"Notes on the Religious Orientation of Scientists", by Gerald Holton,
contains some remarks on Newton's argument from design:
In the General Scholium of the Principia, Newton wrote later, "This
most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
Being ..." But today one can begin to demonstrate that a solar
system such as ours is a consequence of the laws of motion governing
the ways in which our solar system probably formed out of a large
cloud of particles.
I made similar remarks in response to a Newtonian posting recently.
Henry Margenau, in "Truth in Science and Religion", emphasizes the limitations
of science:
The fundamental essence of the ebb and flow of sensations, the
richness of the immediacy of our direct experience, the metaphysical
substance of what assails our being in the act of sensation and
affection, may after all escape the net of rational analysis.
Theodosius Dobzhansky ("Mr. Evolution") comes across definitely, if
somewhat diffusely, theistic, citing evolution as "God's method of creation."
His essay is entitled "Man Consorting with Things Eternal". On the other
hand, Alfred E. Emerson in "The Impact of the Theory of Evolution on Religion",
has the aspect of the victorious general dictating surrender terms.
Edwin C. Kemble in "Faith and the Teaching of Science", expresses strong
misgivings with materialism, and describes his efforts to reconcile
religious belief with science:
I regard it as my business to acquaint the young people in my
class with some of the limitations of science and to preserve among
them a sense of freedom to believe, if their total experience of
life gives nourishment to belief.
John L. Fischer in "The Role of religion as Viewed by the Science of Man",
gives an interesting view of the function of ritual and dogma in human
society. He says,
[I]t is a principal point of the view of religion which I am
presenting that religion does not get its main strength from
pseudoscientific theories of nature but rather from its sym-
bolization of values and its evocation of emotion through these
symbols.
I thought this was one of the better essays. Fischer astutely picks
up on the early (1960) rumblings of the fundamentalist revival, although
I suppose this hardly makes him unique.
Finally, I'll mention "Darwin and Religion" by John C. Greene. This
describes Darwin's apostasy, and shows that Darwin was more acutely
aware of the religious implications of evolution than even many people
today, who tend to gloss over the more disturbing implications. I cite
the brouhaha rasied by Dawkins as evidence of the latter.
Well, this is already an older book, but it is by no means out of date.
It actually helps to have a perspective which shows how constant these
issues have been over recent decades.
Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lewdavid@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/04/84)
[] I would like to thank Lew Mammel for his presentation on the book "Science ponders Religion." I think he presented it in a very unbiased manner (very uncharacteristic of net.religion articles), and I enjoyed reading it. If I see the book I will most surely buy it. Thanks, Lew. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david