ISBN13: 9780824524067
BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed

EDITORIAL REVIEWS

Product Description
Templeton Award winner and theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne explores the gap between science and religion. "Do we have to choose between the scientific and religious views of the world, or are they complementary understandings that give us a fuller picture than either on their own would provide?" Quarks, Chaos, & Christianity shows the ways that both science and religion point to something greater than ourselves. Topics include: chaos theory; evolution; miracles; cosmology; guest for God; how God answers prayer; our human nature; religious fact and opinion; scientists and prayer.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 4.0 based on 16 reviews)

A good overall intro. to the better apologetics arguments by Free Thinker (USA)

4 Stars
October 30, 2009
Exploring the world of Christian apologetics is like shopping at Wal-Mart. There is a huge variety of products to choose from, but many of them are of dubious quality. For readers searching for a brief introduction to the better arguments for the existence of God, the veracity of the New Testament writings, plausible answers to the problem of evil, etc., Polkinghorne's book is a valuable guide. On the other hand, those who are more acquainted with the subject will find it dreadfully basic. This book touches on subjects such as evolution, the Strong Anthropic Principle, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, the role of prayer, the free will argument, and the Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection. Polkinghorne offers a brief summary of the major issues, then explains why he believes there are credible reasons to believe in God. He explores how the indeterminacy in natural systems allows room for human freedom, as well as subtle influences by a Divine Hand. He also faces challenges to theism, such as the problem of evil, unanswered prayers and the alleged conflict between science and religion. He acknowledges the thorniness of the issues, outlines the points of controversy, then shows why he maintains his faith despite, or in some cases because of, the uncertainties of life. A number of things especially delighted me. First, he openly acknowledges that evolution really did occur, although like me he believes that the question of what drives it is far from settled. He affirms his belief in a Deity who experiences the flow of time, a controversial position which nonetheless has numerous advantages over the traditional conception of God. He also dispenses with the approach to the Bible employed by fundamentalists, by recognizing that the scriptures are comprised of widely varying writing styles. He points out that they contain examples of drama, poetry, hyperbole and other literary devices that often sacrifice "literal" truth in order to communicate a symbolic or spiritual message. In so doing he sets himself apart from the likes of Norman Geisler and Josh McDowell, who try to turn the Bible into a scientific textbook or a formal historical account. Overall I recommend this book for those new to apologetics. For parties desiring further study, Polkinghorne lists more advanced works in the appendix. The seasoned student would do well to consult those volumes rather than this one, unless they need a review of basic concepts.

At best, a weak argument for Deism/spirituality by Christopher Wellesley (Garland, TX)

2 Stars
October 08, 2009
Chapter 1 The first chapter starts out simple enough - gives a brief explanation of what science is, what religion is (in his opinion), and how they relate and differ. The first problem is on page 22: "There are some branches of science that are also impossible to test. Cosmology and evolutionary biology are examples." The credibility of this guy as a scientist isn't starting out so well. Evolution is put to the test every time we dig up a new fossil or decode a new genome. Evolution predicts what should be seen - we would not find the fossil of a poodle mixed in with dinosaurs, just as the DNA of Humans would not share as many genetic markers with a butterfly as it would a chimpanzee. To say evolution can't be tested shows this guy to either be ignorant of biological science or just plain dishonest. He goes on to contrast Science with beauty (like music) in an attempt to also lump God in with those things that aren't supposed to be grounded on logic. While it makes sense to say that the CONCEPT of God can resonate with a part of us in the same way music does, music doesn't declare that you love it, nor does it dictate what is right or wrong. Music is subjective, God is not. He would make a fine case if he were merely referring to spirituality - which I have no qualms with - but he makes the unearned leap of attributing this sense of wonder to the Abrahamic God. Chapter 2 This chapter starts out with what kind of criteria we should use to determine if God exists. He comes right out and says that the scientific method of using evidence has to be "tailored" - in other words, must bend to subjective standards. He does this respectfully by acknowledging the serious blow to religion that Darwin dealt, since religion was trying to answer a "how?" question. The problem he should address but doesn't is how can you get around religion NOT addressing "how?" questions. The Adam and Eve story certainly does give a "how" as to how man was created and how man acquired the traits of reason, morality, and sexual enjoyment (all "bad things" that came after the fall) - as well as pain in child-bearing. He goes on to make a case for spirituality in the sort of "seeing the forest through the trees" sense, which, again, I'm cool with so long as nothing that makes logical assertions is tied to it (i.e., religious doctrine.) That's contradictory. From page 37 to 42, he uses the very old and very tired analogy of a fine-tuned universe. To religious people, this is compelling. To experienced atheists, we've heard it a million times and it hasn't the slightest effect in persuading us. There are many complex and intriguing theories about why our universe is the way it is. A humorous take on the matter is to look around and realize that the creator of the universe must have been really inefficient to have these hundreds of billions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of solar systems, yet managed for life to arise on just one little planet out of the whole works. There are other ideas that refute the fine-tuning business, but the bottom line is this: people who use this line of reasoning limit themselves to the idea that this is the one and only universe there is and ever was, and it could have turned out in one of many different ways, but it turned out to be just right, therefore, Yahweh did it. He later goes on to refute his own fine-tuning argument...which makes me wonder why he brought it up in the first place. Chapter 3 On complexity. I accept and truly like the idea of an ever-increasingly complex universe having a spiritual connection. It's good to see that this author does too. He starts making some assertions about a loving god, like, "the natural gift of the loving God would be an independence granted to creation." This is a false definition, as this independence is no more true than the independence of a people living under a strict Monarchy. Sure, you're free to do whatever you want...but go against what the King says and it's curtains for you (yes, I said "curtains.") Independence and freedom, more aptly defined, are characteristics that can only exist when no coercion is present. He states that creation is an ongoing process and mentioned earlier that we needn't think of God as someone who merely "set things going" from the beginning. The question arises: if creation is a process, what is the actual creation that is created? This question is never answered, nor even guessed at. He goes on to explain another tough selling point for religion: evil. He first says that we can't know good without evil - which I completely agree with. He goes on to try to reconcile the problem of cancer and disease: "Why couldn't God just eliminate these?" He claims that these are just part of the natural process that God created and it would be unbalanced if we didn't have the bad to go along with the good. This is all a fine and dandy argument for some kind of spiritual naturalism, but it completely falls apart when the author claims that for God to annihilate cancerous cells (and the like) would result in us living in a kind of unnatural, magical world. This clashes with the following magical (i.e., totally unnatural) ideas that take place in the bible: water to wine, water to blood, sticks to snakes, talking snakes, witches and warlocks (can you get more magical?), levitation, parting of the red/reed sea, women turning into salt, fiery vortex, giant walls manifesting in the air and falling on tens of thousands of people...need I go on? The Old Testament is rife with magic and God intervening. Why is it that obliterating cancer would be an insult to his natural order, but raising Lazarus from the dead isn't? I was pleasantly surprised on page 60 how he refutes the notion that we are separate from the inanimate earth (very Zen Buddhism.) He goes on to conclude that bad things happening are not the will of God, just the effects of his creation, which I believe leads to 2 problems for believers: 1) You have to equate that notion with the idea that God is not the cause of GOOD events. To say that God can influence good events but not bad is the same as saying that God does good things some of the time and lets bad things happen the rest of the time...which is completely retarded. And 2) this goes against the clearly-intervening God in the Old Testament. So which is it: does God let nature take it's course - good or bad - or does he have some weird non-consistent form of intervening? The evidence would point to the contradicting latter point. He concludes his point by saying, essentially, that God came down as Jesus to live among us and suffer, and because he suffered like one of us, our suffering makes sense. That's not a very good selling point to me, as it's on the same level as a rich man deliberately becoming poor and homeless so that he could...somehow relate to and help the homeless...but then go back to being rich. Chapter 4 Here we have some interesting scientific concepts meshed with the well-known notion of the sum of the parts being greater than the individual parts. Nothing majorly controversial here - he tries to throw in God at the end of the chapter, perhaps realizing that nowhere else in that chapter was God needed to explain the phenomena he was describing. Nice save, I suppose. Chapter 5 This chapter starts out kind of awkwardly about prayer. The author says, about patients in hospitals, "I did not [pray for dying patients] expecting that each would be granted a miracle, but, rather, as a way of sharing in their experience and of seeking God's grace and presence for them in what was happening, which might bring either recovery or the acceptance of death." As unintelligible as this statement is, I'll try to make sense of it: he prays so that he can experience empathy for the patient and to try to sense if God's there, which might cure them or allow them to accept death. Even my translated version doesn't make sense. He makes assertions about free will that he doesn't back up: "...the experience of real choice - and, hence, of real responsibility - is basic to being human." I think he would have been more accurate in saying the "perception" of real choice and perceived responsibility. The author goes on to assert that God can and does intervene - which confirms his earlier attempt to explain away evil as a failed one. He then gets into causality and pleads his case for a sort of meta-causality that is a linked system of events that can be influenced by God, thereby allowing for intervention but keeping the plan the same. It is all hypothesis and I wouldn't bet on any scientific breakthroughs anytime soon that demonstrate this "top-down" meta-causality. The author goes on to address the problems with prayer. When we pray, he says, we do two things: 1) we offer to align our will with God's (which isn't really free will anyway if your "choice" to not align your will with God's results in eternal hell-fire), and 2) we ask for what we truly want, but it can only be granted if it's what God wants (I'm barely paraphrasing - the actual statement sounds equally absurd.) Actually, these positions are really the only stances you can take on prayer with minimal contradiction. I say "minimal since there is, of course, is the contradiction of Jesus telling his disciples that anything they pray about shall be given to them. Chapter 6 Miracles. The author dodges the absurdity of molecules of water turning into molecules of wine by not taking a definite stance and saying, "I personally do not think that I have to be certain of the answer to such questions in relation to every claim for miracles found in the Bible." Really? That's it? I can see why: to say water to wine was symbolic (as would make the most sense) leaves him open to say the resurrection was symbolic. He has the choice between magic and no-magic. No-magic equals no resurrection, equals many wasted years in seminary. Magic equals silliness. I see the dilemma. The rest is special pleading that this particular God really does have the power to do extraordinary things. Too bad there's no proof of any of it. I like on page 104 how he says "All the Gospels also contain stories of the empty tomb, the discovery that first Easter morning that the body of Jesus was no longer there," as though this is affirmation of the resurrection, yet he neglects to mention how very very dissimilar all four of the gospels are in the telling of the empty tomb story. They are more dissimilar than they are similar, yet Christians agree - it's a divinely inspired story. Chapter 7 By now, science has completely left the building and it's on to how special you are and you have a destiny that's mapped out for you and heaven will be awesome. Chapter 8 The author ends the book with a chapter that pretty much turns the phrase "scientific theory" on its head and gives it a swirlie. Three paragraphs start out with, "no one has ever seen a quark, but..." and "I believe in the Big Bang [but I never saw it happen]" and "I believe in evolution, but [there's stuff we don't know for certain.]" All of this, predictably, culminates to God having a similar "theoretical" trait - one that you don't have to see to believe. Here's what an actual theory is about: we have mechanisms that show us quarks are real. We have equations that prove the Big Bang happened. We have fossils and DNA that demonstrate evolution and have even witnessed speciation (i.e., the evolution of a species) in the lab. But the existence of a god? This book, at best, accomplishes a sense of awe about the unknown and the sort-of known. It gives a sense of appreciation for science and encourages the expansion of knowledge - which are great ideas. But it attempts to lump a deity into the theoretical mix and say, "here, THIS is why all of this is so awesome." One could easily go through the book and, in most instances, replace the word "God" with "Zeus" and have the exact same logical attributes. Conclusion: I'm not quite sure who this book is for. It's way too scientific to persuade a Creationist, and it's not scientific enough to persuade an atheist. The scientific topics can be better described in a more thorough science book, so this isn't for scientists. I suppose it's for the semi-intelligent, adolescent Christian that feels he needs some evidence, or reason to back-up his beliefs. The problem for him is that the evidence isn't there to begin with.

A Superb and Thoughtful Analysis by Stephen Decker (Portland, OR USA)

5 Stars
July 18, 2008
This is the first work I've read by this author. It is a thoughtful examination of the premise that both science and religion are involved in seeking the truth about the world. The author is a former theoretical physicist turned Anglican priest and theologian. The description of some very abstract science is done clearly enough so that a non-scientist reader can grasp the concepts and understand their extension into the realm of theology. I gather that he has written a number of books that go into many of these ideas in more detail. This book is an overview of those writings. It is a small book but very thought provoking, I need to read it again.

Neither creationism nor evolution by Preacher's kid (Knoxville, TN)

4 Stars
July 05, 2008
This is a fascinating book written in layman's terms about the creation of the universe (among other things). At last we have a scientist/theologian who addresses the issues of evolution vs creationism as a combination of the two. Very little in life is black or white and here a door is opened for the continuing pursuit of how we came to be.

Great Information - Most of it was understandable by J. Geist

4 Stars
July 02, 2008
This is an excellent book. I may not be smart enough to understand all of either the science or theology, but what I understood was informative and thought provoking.

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

	Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne F.R.S. K.B.E. (Author) Despite the differences of their subject matter, science and theology have a cousinly relationship, John Polkinghorne contends in his latest thought-provoking book. From his unique perspective as both theoretical physicist and Anglican priest, Polkinghorne considers aspects of quantum physics and theology and demonstrates that the two truth-seeking enterprises are engaged in analogous rational techniques of inquiry. His exploration of the deep connections between science and theology shows...
	Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion by John Polkinghorne F.R.S. K.B.E. (Author) Reality is multi-layered, asserts the Reverend John Polkinghorne, and in this insightful book he explores various dimensions of the human encounter with reality. Through a well-reasoned and logical process, Polkinghorne argues that reality consists not only of the scientific processes of the natural world but also the personal dimension of human nature and its significance. He offers an integrated view of reality, encompassing a range of insights deriving from physics’ account of causal...
	Science and Providence: God's Interaction with the World by John C. Polkinghorne (Author) Internationally renowned priest-scientist Dr. John Polkinghorne examines whether a personal, interacting God is a credible concept in today’s scientific age. Encouraging the belief that there is a compatibility between the insights of science and the insights of religion, this book focuses on the viewpoint that the world is one in which both human beings and God have the freedom to act A modern understanding of the physical world is applied to questions of prayer and providence, such as:...
	Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions About God, Science, and Belief by John Polkinghorne (Author), Nicholas Beale (Author) For many years people from across the world have sent the scientist-turned-priest John Polkinghorne questions about science and belief. In question-and-answer format, Polkinghorne and his collaborator Nicholas Beale offer their informed opinions about some of the most asked questions. Readers can follow their own paths through the book, selecting questions that interest them and looking at the additional material if they choose. The unique book will help Christians clarify their beliefs and...
	Belief in God in an Age of Science by John Polkinghorne F.R.S. K.B.E. (Author) John Polkinghorne brings unique qualifications to his exploration of the possibilities of believing in God in an age of science: he is internationally known as a theoretical physicist and as a theologian. In this thought-provoking book, Polkinghorne focuses on the collegiality between science and theology, contending that the inquiries of these "intellectual cousins" are parallel.