A Critique of Barbour’s Religion and Science
This is a research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course DR37001, Science and Origins at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO) on July 13th, 2024.
Introduction
The history of science and religion is an oft debated and disagreed upon argument between those who purport that religion has always been anti-science and those who assert that religion and science has had a mutually beneficial relationship.[1] This disagreement amongst science and religion’s interaction throughout history has led to various theories on how the history of science and religion ought to be viewed—whether the two fields are completely incompatible or whether they can be integrated is subject to much debate with even the Roman Catholic Church making a declaration concerning education and the harmony of faith and science in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and several different theories unfolding through the study of history, science, and the philosophy of religion.[2]
This disagreement concerning science, religion, and its integration has led to theories and books such as Ian Barbour’s Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, which seeks to provide a way of viewing everything in life in categorical and systematized methodology that separates science, religion, and various aspects of worldview into distinct categories. It is by viewing the issues at hand as distinct that Barbour then argues for religion’s place within a scientifically dominated worldview, which is summed adequately in his acceptance address as taking Scripture seriously, but not literally.[3] However, in separating aspects of life, science, religion, and belief, Barbour has created a worldview that does not represent orthodox Christianity nor does it meet the requirements for adequacy as a worldview.[4]
An Evaluation of Religion and Science
Barbour in his Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues argues for a method in which science and religion can be integrated in a way that incorporates both belief and trust in what he considers orthodox Christianity and modern science.[5] Barbour’s argument is that regardless of the current push against religious ideology from scientists who argue for a naturalistic approach to scientific endeavors, religion can and should still have a place within the worldview of those who participate in and live in a scientific world.[6] Essentially, Barbour provides a theoretical methodology for still participating in religious belief systems even in a world that seems to be contradicting religious truth in areas such as cosmology, continuing evolutionary theories, and even teleology.
This theoretical methodology is described and examined throughout Barbour’s seminal work starting with a history of the relationship between science and religion.[7] In the first section of the book, Barbour concerns himself with the history of the interaction between science and history. In doing so, Barbour provides a brief overview of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries with each chapter providing essentially a case study of how religion and science have interacted. As Barbour works his way through three hundred years of history, he explains how the universal church and scientific discovery have sometimes disagreed, but other times have provoked greater discovery.
Concerning the History of Religion and Science
One of Barbour’s first examples concerning the history of religion and science is that of Galileo, who openly disagreed with the church’s predominately Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy and worldview. The author shows the antagonism of the Roman Catholic Church against the ideas of Galileo because of the apparent threat by Galileo’s ideas against Roman Catholic doctrine as one early example of the disconnect between science and religion.[8] From this point in history, Barbour explains that belief in God as a predominant and even preeminent worldview had started to degrade with the argument against final causality[9] and the Newtonian-machine view of the universe in which all matter acted in mechanical means and methodology.[10] This degradation of religion within the realm of science resulted in the continuous arguments about whether religion has benefited science or not.
As the change from a Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy and worldview to a Newtonian and even naturalistic worldview continued, ideas that were once commonplace were replaced with contrary ideas. Whereas the Thomistic worldview retained the classical view of God, the Newtonian and naturalistic worldview limited God’s ability and sovereignty and elevated creation as eternal and seemingly sovereign over God;[11] and belief in God became less commonplace within the scientific community.[12] This rejection of religion within the scientific community eventually led to more theories concerning cosmology, teleology, and even epistemology as scientists and philosophers sought to describe the world and universe in a completely naturalistic perspective. These theories, including the Big Bang theory and the multiple theories of evolution, have shaped the modern world’s worldview despite a lack of and inability to obtain empirical evidence concerning either the Big Bang theory or the theories of evolution.
Concerning the Relationship between Science and Religion
Over the next two parts of the book, Barbour then works through scientific methodology in light of religion[13] as well as scientific theories in light of religion.[14] It is through these sections that the author provides examples of how different scientific ideas and theories can fit into a Christian worldview by explaining both the ideas themselves and how they work within the context of Christianity. For instance, in dealing with creation, Barbour wastes no time in defining evolutionary theory, explaining evolutionary debates, and then exploring the theological implications of the integration of evolutionary theory and Christianity.[15] The author has no issue with accepting evolutionary theory even from a Christian perspective; he sees no contradiction between the two ideologies of evolution and special creation. Instead, Barbour suggests a reading of the Genesis account of creation that he argues follow a more neo-orthodox perspective of dealing with creation and evolution,[16] which results in his argument for a theistic evolutionary account of Genesis in lieu of the normative reading of Genesis 1-2.[17]
It is through the explanation of the historical interaction between science and religion that Barbour lays the foundation for an integrated view of both science and religion. Through the historical data presented and the interactions between science and religion that Barbour reveals, he very clearly shows that there are possible ways for religious thinking to still be a part of scientific conversation and research, which he then expands on in the fourth part of the book.
Concerning Barbour’s Philosophical and Theological Reflections
In the fourth part of Barbour’s book his thesis is tested to its full extent. As the author comes to the end of his book, he applies his theological and philosophical conclusions to various aspects of human nature. Recognizing that the issue of human origins is significant when dealing with beliefs concerning cosmology, Barbour turns his attention to answering how a Christian ought to understand the creation account in light of the contrary theories given by secular scientists today. Unfortunately, instead of offering any sort of persuasion into the matter, Barbour asserts his ideology as truth while insisting that humanity is simply a part of nature—unique in its own right, but still just a part of nature.[18]
It is through this section of his book that Barbour walks a line between Christianity and science in which he attempts to balance both worldviews in a way that seems to allow for a Christian to hold a naturalistic cosmology, but the methodology through which he suggests doing this is by rejecting the normative reading of the text of Scripture.[19] This is seen clearly as he deals with the historicity of Adam and Eve, “The conclusion of the Adam and Eve story (3:16-19) implies that in the Garden of Eden there was no death and suffering for humanity . . . Today we cannot accept the historicity of such a paradise. We know that death and suffering are necessary conditions of life in an evolutionary world.”[20]
Once the historicity of Adam and Eve is doubted, Barbour then works to dismantle other aspects of what he considers a previous paradigm concerning nature. In a helpful diagram, the author shows how general thoughts concerning nature had shifted from one paradigm in the medieval era to the Newtonian paradigm to finally the twentieth-century paradigm. In showing the paradigm shifts, it is evident that the typical frame of thinking moved from a God-oriented frame of thinking towards and nature-oriented frame of thinking.[21]
Barbour’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Barbour’s thesis finds its strengths primarily in its ability to provide a seemingly rationalistic and logical understanding of science that appears to integrate faith into the conversation. As such, the thesis at hand appeals to Christians who desire reputability within the secular world because it appears to allow a Christian the ability to accept the modern-day scientific paradigm of naturalism with its theories of the Big Bang and evolution while maintaining a belief in God or, at the very least, some sort of religious ideology or belief system. Another strength of both Barbour’s thesis and his argumentation throughout Religion and Science is his methodical, rationalistic, and logical presentation. For the average reader, the argument is compelling and convincing especially when placed in the historical context of the book’s first part. Any lay person could read this book and find the overarching argument accessible with perhaps the exception of some of the more technical language utilized in parts two and three, which can also make the book more appealing to those who are less informed about the issues at hand. It is worth noting that despite Barbour’s attempts to rationalize the integration of science and religion, he is firm on not allowing religion to be relegated to meaninglessness, but rather, he consistently argues for its benefit throughout his book, which would appeal to any Christian seeking to integrate faith and science in their own worldview.[22]
Despite the strengths of Barbour’s thesis and his argumentation, there are some significant weaknesses. For instance, in separating aspects of life, science, religion, and belief, the author develops a worldview that is too compartmentalized to be beneficial. In rejecting the normative reading and understanding of Scripture, Barbour actually makes the Christian worldview more complicated because certain clear elements of truth in Scripture are either outrightly rejected by Barbour or are explained in a way that is contrary to the normal reading of the Bible. In particular, the whole creation account (Gen 1-2) and the historicity of Adam and Eve are rejected by Barbour, which places his ideology in a precarious position concerning orthodox theology. While it could be possible for someone who is genuinely saved to reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the creation account, it relegates certain aspects of theology into untruth—for example, Jesus does seem to believe that Adam is historical (Matt 19:4-5) and He also speaks of the creation account with the implication that creation is historical rather than mythological. If Adam and Eve along with creation are not historical, Jesus is wrong in His theological assertions; and if Jesus is wrong, the theological implications concerning His divinity are too significant to ignore. By complicating the Christian worldview, Barbour’s own modified Christian worldview fails the test of simplicity, which invalidates his perspective.[23]
In addition, Barbour’s willingness to reformulate theology to fit his presuppositions rejects both Scripture itself, historical theology, and church history. It is worth noting that he also mentions that this process of reformulating theology has been criticized because it departs from classical theology and yet, he still insists on utilizing this process to validate his own views concerning theology and science.[24] The issue is that by reformulating theology to fit his own worldview, he openly rejects orthodox Christianity even as he insists that his view still fits orthodox Christianity. And he does this by making the common assertion that the Bible is not a scientific textbook nor is it intended to give scientific statements—essentially, the author insists that it is possible to reject the plain reading of Scripture while obtaining or retaining a simply theological understanding of the text,[25] which then makes Scripture subjective. If Scripture can only speak to spiritual or theological issues, but it cannot make statements concerning science, what stops the reader of Scripture from rejecting other issues in Scripture with the same line of argumentation?[26] The reality is that the integration of a naturalistic worldview with a Christian worldview, which is Barbour’s overall goal, is logically and rationally inconsistent because it forces the integrator to either reject elements of Christian thought or reject elements of naturalistic thoughts. This same argument can be utilized in any attempt to integrate secular ideology with a Christian worldview—realistically, integrating any other worldview with Christianity strips Christianity. Like before, Barbour’s integrated worldview fails another test of validity concerning worldviews—it fails the test of reason or coherence, which invalidates his perspective yet again.
The reality is that Barbour’s integrated worldview for science and religion appeals primarily to two groups of people. It appeals to Christians who seek respectability amongst unbelieving scholars and scientists, and it appeals to unbelievers who would utilize a theory like Barbour’s to point out the supposed inadequacies of a Christian worldview or at the very least the supposed insufficiency of the Bible. Barbour’s thesis does not aid Christians in their understanding of truth, but rather, it undermines the true source of all truth—God’s Word.
Conclusion
Ultimately, though Barbour provides a compelling, seemingly logical and rational argument in an attempt to find a place for religion amongst scientific inquiry, what he actually does is elevate science into a sovereign position over religion. Rather than providing a place of coexistence amongst those who seek both religion and modern scientific advancement, what actually happens is a skilled argument for rearranging theological truth to fit or validate modern science. And the reality is that if modern scientific theories always correct theological truth, which it often does in Barbour’s philosophy of science and religion, then science itself is the true religion of the individual. What results is a subjective religion that changes whenever the scientific community makes a contrary discovery, which makes Christianity no different than the myths of the ancient world. The ideology that Barbour purports does not create a place for Christianity within the world of science, but rather, it creates a false Christianity that actually resembles another gospel at best or panentheism at worst; and that seems to be in the direction that the author is headed within the concluding paragraph of his book, “Reference to the Spirit can help us to avoid the separation of creation and redemption that occurred in much of classical Christianity . . . It will help us recover a sense of the sacred in nature that can motivate a strong concern for the environment.”[27]
Essentially, what Barbour has done in his attempt to wed Christianity with modern scientific theory was to create a completely different worldview that has Christian undertones, but results in a different understanding of God, creation, and mankind. And in doing so, he has created a worldview that has allowed modern Christians the ability to hold to differing worldviews without actually seeing the inconsistencies and irreconcilable nature of those worldviews—really, he has given modern-day Christians the ability to claim belief in Jesus Christ without necessarily believing the Word of God to be inerrant or even sufficient for faith in the modern world. It is this fact that makes Barbour’s work and ideology so dangerous for Christians today.
[1] James C. Ungureanu, “Relocating the Conflict Between Science and Religion at the Foundations of the History of Science,” Zygon53, no. 53 (December 2018): 1106-1109.
[2] Pope Paul VI, “Declaration on Christian Education,” Gravssimum Eductionis, The Holy See, October 28, 1965, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html.
[3] Ian G. Barbour, “Acceptance Address by Prof. Ian Barbour,” Templeton Prize, n.d., https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate-sub/barbour-acceptance-address/#:~:text=I%20am%20profoundly%20grateful%20to,of%20my%20own%20life%20experience.
[4] Thorvald B. Madsen, “Critical Thinking and Worldviews,” Philosophy for Understanding Apologetics, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, n.d.
[5] Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1997), xv.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 3-29.
[8] Barbour, 13.
[9] Ibid., 15.
[10] Ibid., 17-24.
[11] Ibid., 32.
[12] Barbour, 35.
[13] Ibid., 77-161.
[14] Ibid.,165-249.
[15] Ibid., 237-240.
[16] Barbour, 244.
[17] Ibid., 245.
[18] Ibid., 255.
[19] Ibid., 268.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 282-284.
[22] Ibid., 267.
[23] Madsen, 16.
[24] Barbour, 327.
[25] Ibid. 329.
[26] This is precisely how many theologically liberal denominations circumvent a lot of Scriptural teachings—making Scripture subjective removes the truth.
[27] Barbour, 332.
