DOCSLIB.ORG

Science, Reason and Religion 19.09.12 Professor Keith WARD Introduction: Revd Scott S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science, Reason and Religion 19.09.12 Professor Keith WARD Introduction: Revd Scott S OPening ADDReSS: Science, ReASOn AnD ReligiOn 19.09.12 PROfeSSOR Keith WARD introduction: Revd Scott S. McKenna Good evening. Welcome to Mayfield Salisbury Parish Church. This is the first of five events which make up our Festival of Science, Reason and Religion. When we wrote to each of our invited guests, we said: In our view, the Church has never fully or adequately responded to the 'challenges' of science or reason and, in the present day, the Church is perceived to be anti-intellectual, superstitious, bigoted and homophobic, at times not without justification. We said: We are spiritual seekers after truth and recognise that there may be more than one truth. Our festival will be an honest, intellectually rigorous and, we hope, enjoyable exploration about the nature of reality and what it means to be human. This evening’s opening address is being delivered by Keith Ward. We were delighted when Keith accepted our invitation. Keith Ward is a philosopher, theologian and a priest in the Church of England. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and has over 25 books to his name. Keith graduated from the University of Wales. Through the 60s and 70s, he lectured in Logic at Glasgow University, then Philosophy at St Andrews. He has also lectured at King’s College London and Trinity Hall Cambridge. Finally, in 1991, Keith was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, a post he held for 13 years. In his retirement, if I may put it that way, he has written much and lectured across the world, from Calcutta to Auckland and Philadelphia to Bellagio. He has given keynote addresses in such places as Washington, Dublin, Basel, Istanbul and now Professor Keith Ward Edinburgh. 4 Opening Address: Professor Keith Ward (Full Transcript) It is a great privilege to be asked to open this series. I think the series stands at the head of any possible series on this subject, leaving myself out of account. It is a fantastic array of people speaking so it should be fantastic. But I’ve got to open it so you have to put up with this for tonight, and I am going to talk about, of course, science, reason and religion: subjects which have fascinated me throughout my life. And I have been lucky enough to be able to spend my time studying them, and one of the advantages of moving round universities is that you meet lots of experts in science, and philosophy and theology too, and what you don’t know you can ask. So although I don’t know everything, I know a lot of people who do, and I tend to ask them what they think about things. So most of my information comes from people I have had dinner with, so, some of it is liquid and all of it is changeable, but it’s mostly reputable. I want to begin by saying that there is a legend grown up. It is very strange how these things happen: a legend about the relationship between religion and science. And the legend is that there is a battle, there is a war, between religion and science. And just as a matter of historical fact this is very hard to think that it’s true. It does seem to be a myth put around by people who have an ideological interest at stake, and they get most of their information incorrect. So let me start with one or two historical facts about the relationship between the sciences and theology. The first obvious and indisputable one is that science, in its modern sense, as we know it now, began in Christian Europe, and in Christian Europe it was belief in God which led to the rise of science. So that is the first thing, that’s just a fact. It was the belief that there was a wise designer of the universe that led people to think about what that design might be like, and to take an interest in what the universe was like. And because in the Bible it says that human beings were made in the image of God, people thought, well, perhaps we are rational, and God is wise and rational, so perhaps human reason can work out what the universe is like. So for example, the Copernican hypothesis: that is the view that the planets go round the sun, was invented, of course, as you would expect, by Copernicus. But what people don’t always know is that Copernicus was a Canon of the Roman Catholic Church, and if you go to Kraków Cathedral you will find a stone with a representation of the Copernican system, with the sun at the centre and the earth going round it, and there was no controversy about this whatsoever. The introduction to his book was written by the local cardinal who said what an excellent piece of work it was. So there was no war at all. Nobody thought about that. Later on of course Galileo came along and that is perhaps where people seize on this 5 as the battle. There was a sort of battle with Galileo, and in 1633 he was declared a heretic. Now that’s quite true. But the way to remember this, the way to think of this, is that at that time of course the Roman Catholic Church was the only outfit around which was studying science. I mean that is where science was done, within the Catholic Church. Galileo’s telescope is still there in the Vatican. It is not a very good one, but it is a very interesting one to look at, not to look through, because Rome is so full of light that you can’t see anything, but there’s the telescope. Galileo always was, remained and died a faithful Catholic. But the dispute of course was whether Aristotle was right. Aristotle was thought to be the person who knew everything. He was the master of those who know anything. So people thought Aristotle has said the truth, and Aristotle has said that the stars are on a crystalline sphere and the earth is at the centre and there are no sun spots or defects on objects in the heavens. And the quarrel was not between the faith and science, it was between establishment science saying this is just so foundational, Aristotle is so foundational, that if you let that go science would collapse, so you must believe Aristotle. Anyway what was Galileo’s telescope worth? It probably didn’t work and couldn’t be trusted. His was the first telescope, not the first telescope, but the first one that had been used to look at the stars, so of course there could have been something wrong with the equipment, so that was the argument. It got very heated, and Galileo unfortunately called the Pope stupid, which was not very clever at the time. The church was very tyrannical. But the equivalent today of that argument would be somebody who came along and said they had refuted Einstein’s theory of relativity. If somebody said that you can imagine all the fellows of the Royal Society would say this is absolutely ridiculous, throw it in the bin, and if they had the power they might even, of course Galileo was never tortured or anything like that, but if they had the power they might say we are going to throw this bloke out of the Royal Society because these thoughts are too radical. So if you look at the historical background to the Galileo dispute, it wasn’t actually science versus religion, it was established science which turned out to be wrong, and new fangled science looking at things through telescopes inventing new theories, although Copernicus had actually thought of it already. It was that sort of dispute. The Church has admitted that they were wrong, admittedly it took three hundred years, but in fact not long ago, a few years ago, the Catholic Church did apologise, well almost. It said: ‘We could have been wrong, that’s true’. So yes, there have been little disputes, and of course we know there are disputes today, about people who think the world was created in six days and a lot of people think it wasn’t. So there are disputes, but that is hardly a dispute between science and religion. It’s a dispute between different groups of religious people. The vast majority of Christians, the vast majority, think the world was not created in six days, the world was created in 17 billion years, ah no, 13.7 actually, American billion years which is 1000 million years. We have no trouble with that. The Catholic Church has officially 6 committed itself to that view. The Anglican Church, my own church, hasn’t committed itself to anything, but that is what most of us think, and there is no difficulty about that. But there are a lot of Christians who think ..., they take the Bible literally, and so, yes, the dispute is within Christianity. It is worth saying that thing about the literal thing, no Christian theologian historically has ever taken Genesis literally. There isn’t one major Christian theologian: Aquinus, Anselm, Augustine who has taken it literally, and can I just quote from St Augustine. St Augustine wrote a book called ‘ On the Literal Meaning of Genesis ’, in which he said that the literal meaning of Genesis is, of course, nothing to do with time, and when it talks about days that is not talking about periods of time at all.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Griset Lecturer: Keith Ward Spring 2016 (1 Unit)
    Religion 329: “Science and Religion: the Great Debate” Griset Lecturer: Keith Ward Spring 2016 (1 unit) Class Meeting Times: Tuesday February 23 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Wednesday February 24 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Monday, February 29 7:00 (Public Lecture: Christ and the Cosmos—Attendance Mandatory) Tuesday March 1 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Wednesday March 2 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Monday March 7 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Tuesday March 8 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Units of Study: 1. Can there be a debate? Has there really been a war between science and religion? Can we define ‘science’ or ‘religion’, anyway? Has science killed both religion and philosophy, as Stephen Hawking has claimed? 2. How the universe began. Scientific and religious accounts of the origin of the universe. What do Christians mean by ‘creation’? Does this compete with modern cosmology? 3. How the universe will end. The scientific revolution in quantum physics. Can there be purpose in a scientifically understood universe? Is the universe pointless? 4. Is there a problem with evolution? How the theory of evolution began as a religious doctrine, why it came to be seen as anti‐religious, and why it is still such a contentious theory. 5. Has science eliminated miracles? Are there absolute laws of nature? Is science on the way to explaining everything? 6. The ‘hard problem’. Why does consciousness exist, and how does it relate to matter? Can rational animals (i.e.humans) survive death? These sessions will be a combination of lecture and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quest for Ultimate Reason Transcript
    The Quest for Ultimate Reason Transcript Date: Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 12:00AM THE QUEST FOR ULTIMATE REASON Professor Keith Ward Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza; the age of Rationalism. If there is one philosophical view that is almost universally disparaged in the modern world it is 'Cartesian Dualism'. Everyone knows it is wrong, and some philosophers are scandalised by it. 'Dualism must be avoided at all costs', writes the American philosopher Daniel Dennett. And most psychologists and neurologists, even when they talk about and seem to admit the existence of, consciousness and its contents - dreams, images, sensations, thoughts and feelings - hasten to add, 'But of course I am not a Cartesian dualist'. This is very sad, because Descartes was trying to respond to the scepticism of writers like Montaigne, who held that we could not know anything. He was trying to find at least one thing of which we could be absolutely certain. As we all know, he found it in the proposition, 'I think, therefore I am'. But the modern world not only finds it possible to doubt that proposition. It completely rejects it as incoherent. I will say straight away that I am not part of this modern world. I find Descartes' arguments convincing. But I have to say that furtively, for fear of the scorn of my philosophical colleagues, 'No wonder that man became a theologian', they say, 'He was, after all, a Cartesian dualist'. However, there is no safety in theology either, since most theologians, also, have nothing good to say about Descartes. 'Humans are psycho-physical unities', says one of the most respected physicists and theologians, John Polkinghorne.
    [Show full text]
  • ¼ PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION.Pdf
    ACONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA of the PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION other books in the same series A Concise Encyclopedia of Judaism, Dan Cohn-Serbok, ISBN 1–85168–176–0 A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Klaus K. Klostermaier, ISBN 1–85168–175–2 A Concise Encyclopedia of Christianity, Geoffrey Parrinder, ISBN 1–85168–174–4 A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism, John Powers, ISBN 1–85168–233–3 A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha´’ı´ Faith, Peter Smith, ISBN 1–85168–184–1 A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Gordon D. Newby, ISBN 1–85168–295–3 related titles published by oneworld Ethics in the World Religions, Edited by Joseph Runzo and Nancy M. Martin, ISBN 1–85168–247–3 The Fifth Dimension, John Hick, ISBN 1–85168–191–4 Global Philosophy of Religion: A Short Introduction, Joseph Runzo, ISBN 1–85168–235–X God: A Guide for the Perplexed, Keith Ward, ISBN 1–85168–284–8 God, Faith and the New Millennium, Keith Ward, ISBN 1–85168–155–8 Love, Sex and Gender in the World Religions, Edited by Joseph Runzo and Nancy M. Martin, ISBN 1–85168–223–6 The Meaning of Life in the World Religions, Edited by Joseph Runzo and Nancy M. Martin, ISBN 1–85168–200–7 The Phenomenon of Religion, Moojan Momen, ISBN 1–85168–161–2 ACONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA of the PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION ANTHONY C. THISELTON A CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Oneworld Publications (Sales and Editorial) 185 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7AR England www.oneworld-publications.com # Anthony C. Thiselton 2002 All rights reserved. Copyright under Berne Convention A CIP record for this title is available from the British Library ISBN 1–85168–301–1 Cover design by Design Deluxe Typeset by LaserScript, Mitcham, UK Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow NL08 Contents Preface and acknowledgements vi A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion 1 Chronology 329 Index of names 337 Preface and acknowledgements Aims, scope and target readership he following selection of subject entries has been shaped in the light of Tmany years of feedback from my own students.
    [Show full text]
  • The Final Destiny of the Unevangelised
    T The Final Destiny of the Unevangelised Gordon Grant Beliefs about the postmortem destiny of the unevangelised can strongly influence pastoral ministry. In innumerable households the wife retains a live faith and active membership of the church, but the husband is either agnostic or an atheist, and his church membership is either non-existent or merely nominal. It is also a fact that men tend to die before their wives. When the minister visits the bereaved widow, what comfort can he bring her? She is apt to reflect upon her husband’s lack of faith, and wonder about his final destiny. If she retains a smattering of traditional teaching, she may well believe that an active faith in Christ is the sole passport to heaven, and that her unbelieving and indifferent husband is consigned to eternal damnation. That traditional views regarding the destiny of the unevangelised are still very much in vogue among church people, recently came to light in a survey conducted by Eric Stoddart.1 He discovered that a clear majority of Scotland’s clergy believe that there will be a Judgment Day at which we will be separated into two categories – the ‘saved’ and the ‘lost’. A similar majority of clergy consider there to be no postmortem opportunities for us to switch from being lost to being saved. The result, in their opinion, will be that some of us will be eternally separated from God. Over a third of clergy believe that this separation will involve eternal mental anguish in hell; more than one fifth hold that this suffering will be an eternal physical torment.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download the New Atheists: the Twilight of Reason and the War
    THE NEW ATHEISTS: THE TWILIGHT OF REASON AND THE WAR ON RELIGION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Tina Beattie | 208 pages | 01 Mar 2008 | Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd | 9780232527124 | English | London, United Kingdom New Atheism - Wikipedia I would add that the new atheists fail to take seriously enough the challenge posed by the genocides of the 20th century to their own position, with its faith in science, progress, and reason. We should remember that, in the 20th century, a religious person was much more likely to be persecuted by an atheist than vice versa. Why do you think you have more in common with Richard Dawkins than George W. Well, for a start Dawkins has been fairly robust in his condemnation of the Iraq war, but I also agree with many of his criticisms about the dangers of religion -- not the least of those dangers is the alliance between recent American presidents and the Christian Right. I have a friend who has a bumper sticker that says 'The Christian Right is neither'. My problem with Dawkins is not that he criticizes religious extremism, but that he is so undiscriminating and ill-informed in his criticisms. He blunts the impact of his own critique by spreading it too thinly and too wide. But if I had to choose between spending an evening with Dawkins or with Dubya, I'd choose Dawkins if only because I think the jokes would be better the intentional ones, anyway. Skip to main content. By using sojo. Subscribe Magazine Preaching the Word Newsletters. Jim Wallis. Speakers Bureau. Jul 22, Why is this new atheism primarily a British and American phenomenon? Buy now.
    [Show full text]
  • Keith Ward's Theodicy Keith Ward Retired As Regius Professor Of
    CHAPTER THREE KEITH WARD’S THEODICY Keith Ward retired as Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford in 2004. He was the Gresham Professor of Divinity at Gresham College in London from 2004 to 2008, but is now retired. He is an acknowledged philosopher of religion, author of acclaimed books like Divine Action (1990/2007); God, Chance and Necessity (1996); God: A Guide for the Perplexed (2002), and several others. Ward has not written any books where the problem of evil is the only focus, but many of his books have one or more chapters about theodicy. Relevant books in this regard are Rational Theology and the Creativity of God (1982); God, Chance and Necessity (1996); Religion and Creation (1996); God, Faith and the New Millennium (1998); and Pascal’s Fire (2006). Most extensive on the problem of evil is his book Divine Action from 1990, which came in a new print with a new foreword in 2007. Ward says in the preface that chapters three to seven are about the problem of evil, but most of the other chapters are also highly relevant since they dis- cuss God and creation, human freedom, and the particularity of provi- dence. This introduction will focus on his book Divine Action, since it is the most thorough. In the foreword of the 2007-print, Ward says that he still defends the main content of what he has written there. I will supplement his writing here with other books, when that seems to me to strengthen Ward’s case. Ward is similar to Swinburne on very many points.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato and His Legacy Transcript
    Plato and his Legacy Transcript Date: Thursday, 22 November 2007 - 12:00AM PLATO AND HIS LEGACY Professor Keith Ward My lectures this year are not lectures in the philosophy of religion. They are lectures in philosophy insofar as its major concerns impinge upon religion. The connections are quite close, since some of the major philosophical questions are concerned with the ultimate nature of reality, the nature of the human person, questions of meaning, value, and purpose, and questions of responsibility, freedom, and morality. Philosophers have something of a reputation for independence of mind and scepticism, and they usually dislike being thought of as defenders of any sort of orthodoxy. There are some notable defenders of orthodox belief, like Thomas Aquinas. But even he was banned from teaching for a while by the Bishop of Paris, and his views were thought to be very advanced in the thirteenth century. Most major philosophers have inclined to a roughly Idealist view of the world - they have thought that there is something mind-like at the basis of things, or that values are in some sense objective. There has always been an anti- Idealist opposition, and it still exists today. Some of the best known philosophers of recent times have inclined to reductionist or materialist views of one sort or another, though they are in fact a minority among professional philosophers. I intend to treat matters historically, moving from the ancient Greeks, by way of late medieval Christendom and the Enlightenment, to recent emphasis on problems of consciousness and artificial intelligence. It may seem an unduly European or 'Western' history.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil: a New Solution
    18 The Problem of Evil: A New Solution Atle Ottesen Søvik Dean of Studies, MF, Norwegian School of Theology [email protected] I have recently presented a new solution to the problem of evil, by expanding on Keith Ward’s ideas about the subject. In this article I present my solution to the problem of evil, but I add several new data and arguments concerning human independence, the indeterminism involved in God’s creation, and animal pain. Introduction ‘genuine’, I mean that it does not serve a n this article I will present a solution higher good which in a wider perspective to the problem of evil, also known as would make the evil good. I shall return Ia theodicy. It has been presented befo - to what is meant by saying that God is re, but several new points will be added in good and omnipotent. this article. I shall notify the reader when Many solutions to this problem deny these new elements are presented. First I that God is either good or omnipotent, or present the problem as it will be defined they deny that there is genuine evil. I in this article. Then I present how Keith accept that God is good and omnipotent, Ward solves the problem, but at different and that there is genuine evil in the world. places I add ideas of my own. Some of The solution I present denies that there is these I have published before, and some a real contradiction, and shows why the are new here. Objections are answered as contradiction is merely apparent by ad - I proceed.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Theological Dimension of Comparative Theology
    Religions 2012, 3, 1041–1053; doi:10.3390/rel3041041 OPEN ACCESS religions ISSN 2077-1444 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Article Challenging Truths: Reflections on the Theological Dimension of Comparative Theology Rose Drew 523 Shields Road, Glasgow, G41 2RF, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Received: 27 September 2012; in revised form: 27 October 2012 / Accepted: 29 October 2012 / Published: 1 November 2012 Abstract: Given that comparative theology is aimed at learning from the insights of other religious traditions, the comparative theologian‘s confessional perspective must be engaged and subject to possible transformation through the discovery of truth in those traditions. Despite Francis Clooney‘s and James Fredericks‘ attempts to distance comparative theology from the theology of religions, its truth-seeking dimension makes participation in the theology of religions unavoidable. Crucial to integrating what is learned, moreover, is a willingness to allow presuppositions about the other to be challenged and to make revisions if necessary. Keith Ward exhibits this willingness but, on this basis, distinguishes comparative theology from confessional theology, thus obscuring the legitimacy of revision from a committed religious standpoint. Where comparative theologians are willing and able to integrate all that is learned through their study of other traditions, comparative theology can be conceived of as both a confessional enterprise and a contribution to what Wilfred Cantwell Smith called ‗World Theology‘—that is, the ongoing attempt
    [Show full text]
  • Theology Today Issue 1
    Theology Today A Newsletter from the Institute of Anglican Studies at St George’s Cathedral, Perth ~ committed to building up a well-informed and thinking Anglican Community. ISSUE 1 ~ SEPTEMBER 2009 Keith Ward to Visit Perth The Reverend Professor Keith Ward, British cleric, philosopher, theologian and scholar, will be in Perth, at the invitation of St George’s Cathedral Institute for Anglican Studies, from 12-27 September 2009. A Brief Biography A graduate from the University of Wales in 1962, Professor Keith Ward has since been awarded a Doctorate of Divinity from both Cambridge and Oxford, and an honorary DD from the University of Glasgow, where he delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 1993-94. Academic posts include Dean of Trinity Hall Cambridge, FD Maurice Professor of Moral and Social Theology at the University of London, Professor of History and Philosophy of Religion at Kings College London, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and most recently Gresham Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, London. Professor Ward is an ordained Anglican priest and was a Canon of Christ Church Oxford until 2003. He has published more than 20 books, focusing largely on comparative theology and the interplay between science and faith. As an advocate of theistic evolution, his writings (particularly God, Chance and Necessity) have famously challenged the thinking of atheist Richard Dawkins. His books also confront Christian fundamentalism on the one hand (notably in What the Bible Really Teaches), and the radical writings of theologian Don Cupitt on the other (in Holding Fast to God). Professor Ward is a Fellow of the British Academy and was Joint President of the World Congress of Faiths from 1992-2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Zone
    The Tablet Student Zone Free Teaching Resources Worksheet based on the article ‘Faith, Hope and a Lack of Clarity’ by Keith Ward (The Tablet, 21st January 2006) Worksheet Charlotte Vardy, 2011 The Tablet Student Zone ‘Faith, Hope and a Lack of Clarity’ Worksheet Charlotte Vardy 2011 Faith, hype and a lack of clarity Keith Ward - 21 January 2006 (Keith Ward is professor of Divinity, Gresham College, London, and Regius Professor of Divinity Emeritus, University of Oxford. His latest book is ‘The Case for Religion’). For the past two weeks, the Oxford professor Richard Dawkins has attacked religious faith on television as irrational, non-thinking and a suspension of critical faculty. Here, a leading theologian takes him to task. Science and religion are in absolute conflict, according to Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Furthermore, in The Root of All Evil, a two-part TV series this month, he has made the extraordinary claim that religion might be the root of all evil. It seems that he thinks scientists are all reasonable, sceptical, honest people who insist on having evidence for all their beliefs. Religious believers, however, are irrational, and their faith discourages independent thought, is divisive, and dangerous. Faith, Dawkins said, is a process of non-thinking, or of believing because you have been told, without any evidence at all. Presumably scientists who have religious beliefs are rational during the week, and suddenly become insane on Sundays. It takes only a little knowledge of history to undermine this black-and-white view of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Resources in Science-Religion Dialogue
    Some Resources in Science and Theology Dialogue A selection of the many books, organisations, journals and web resources available. Phil Edwards, © April 2008 1 Books 1.1 General interest – easy to read Kitty Ferguson “The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion and the Search for God” Bantam 1994 / Templeton Foundation Press 2004. A popular readable account of discussion of scientific discoveries and their impact on beliefs. Alister McGrath “Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life” Blackwell 2005 A good response to Dawkins’ scientific atheism. Michael Poole “User’s Guide to Science and Belief” Lion 2007 Excellent easy to read introduction. Discusses the issues of cause and purpose, evidence, design, miracles, the Galileo affair, evolution. Russell Stannard “Here I am!” Faber & Faber 1993 A story for 11/12 year olds but suitable for any age. It tackles the science/religion issues of creation & evolution, miracles and evil & suffering. 1.2 General interest and study – more effort required Ian Barbour “When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners” SPCK / HarperOne 2000 Discusses the relationship of science and religion in a number of areas including the Big Bang, evolution and human nature. John Hedley Brooke “Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives” CUP 1991 An historical approach showing that the idea that science and religion have always been in conflict is too simplistic. Philip Clayton (ed) “The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science” OUP 2008 Includes articles by experts on many major world religions (and atheism) and scientific disciplines. Thomas Dixon “Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction” OUP 2008 An excellent concise summary of the field.
    [Show full text]