In today's science section there's a great review of seven new books on the subject of Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables in the New York Times. The books covered are:THE LANGUAGE OF GOD By Francis S. Collins. Free Press, 2006.
THE GOD DELUSION By Richard Dawkins. Houghton Mifflin, 2006
BREAKING THE SPELL: RELIGION AS A NATURAL PHENOMENON By Daniel C. Dennett. Viking, 2006.
GOD’S UNIVERSE By Owen Gingerich. Harvard University Press, 2006
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN FAITH: REFLECTIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST By Joan Roughgarden. Island Press, 2006.
THE CREATION: A MEETING OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION by E.O. Wilson. W.W. Norton, 2006.
SIX IMPOSSIBLE THINGS BEFORE BREAKFAST: THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF BELIEF By Lewis Wolpert.
Now, in the middle of the review-article the author, Cornelia Dean, remarks,
All of which leads one to ask, who are these books for? The question is easy to answer when it comes to Drs. Collins, Roughgarden or Gingerich. First would be young people raised in religious families, who as they progress through school suddenly confront scientific reality that challenges Sunday morning dogma.I say these are "real" books to differentiate them from the amateur efforts that have addressed the issues of science and faith in the Orthodox Jewish community.
Compare this professional review-article to a bunch of alternatives here for instance. The disconnect between the "real" world of learning and inquiry and that other world is quite dramatic.
4 comments:
Is Dennett for "real"?
From firstthings.com:
The philosopher Daniel Dennett visited us at the University of Delaware a few weeks ago and gave a public lecture entitled “Darwin, Meaning, Truth, and Morality.” ... Dennett claimed that Darwin had shredded the credibility of religion and was, indeed, the very “destroyer” of God. In the question session, philosophy professor Jeff Jordan made the following observation to Dennett, “If Darwinism is inherently atheistic, as you say, then obviously it can’t be taught in public schools.” “And why is that?” inquired Dennett, incredulous. “Because,” said Jordan, “the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees government neutrality between religion and irreligion.” Dennett, looking as if he’d been sucker-punched, leaned back against the wall, and said, after a few moments of silence, “clever.” After another silence, he came up with a reply: He had not meant to say that evolution logically entails atheism, merely that it undercuts religion.
Yeah well First Things is not exactly neutral.
And you are, no doubt.
I follow the reviews. Let's wait and see what the NY Times says about it.
Post a Comment