Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? Paperback – Jan 2004
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Top Customer Reviews
...the scientific method itself precludes the knowledge of truth, so that even with the correct presuppositions, science is completely incompetent as a way to discover the nature of reality. Ronald W. Clark comments, "Contemplation of first principles progressively occupied Einstein's attention," and in such a context, he quotes Einstein as saying, "We know nothing about it at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren....the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never." The typical college student would disagree, but the typical college student is not Einstein. Of course, he could only speak as a representative of science and not revelation.
Although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it....In science there is no "knowledge," in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth....Einstein declared that his theory was false - he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.
W. Gary Crampton:
In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them.Read more ›
As far as the conflict between science and religion goes, the truth of the matter is that there really isn't much of one. They seek to answer completely different questions. Science tries to explain how things work while religion tries to give meaning to life. The only conflict comes when religion tries to make statements of fact about history or the workings of the universe. The reasonable solution in this case, which the Vatican has adopted, is to regard any mistakes in religion in regard to the physical world as metaphors and really irrelevant in regard to religion's true purpose.
A conflict does come in the underpinnings of science and fundamentalism. Science is skeptical and inquisitive. An idea must be tested and varified by multiple observations to be accepted. Conversely, fundamentalists believe that no one should ever question their particular religion, and if one does it's because they are evil and licentious and want to do a lot of "sinning" without having to worry about a future judgement. Dr. Schaefer tries to adhere to both though. He attempts to dispell the conflict by saying science supports his religion. This idea is completely silly because modern science is composed almost entirely of mathematical equations and dry secular explanations.Read more ›
He uses history to show that the founding scientist who have laid the foundation of scientific discovery and thought were in fact Christians and pursued their vocations because they believed that God created a wold in which they could invetiagte according to rational governing laws. He also mentions the many Christian-scientists today who are among the elite in their professions, therefore discounting the often spread myth that those who espouse a creation model of any sort are fundamentalists Christians and not "really" scientists.
He does mention certian scientific discoveries that lead one to conclude that their is a God and easily shows the folly and highjacking of science terminology but many atheists such as Dawkins and Huxley. At times, his words overlap (due to it being based of the lectures) and he could have spent more time on certian scientific data and concepts that are widely distorted or misunderstood by both evolutionists and young earth creationists. I wish he had of went into more detials why he was not a young earth creationists because this is a point of contention within the non-evolutionists camp. All in all, a good book.
Most recent customer reviews
Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?
by Henry F. Schaefer, III
Having "seen the movie" with great pleasure, I was reticent to "read the book," thinking it... Read more
Dr. Schaefer allows us to poke into his personal and professional life in this candid collection of essays. Read morePublished on June 23 2004 by Travisimo
Schaefer has written an honest and highly personal account which shows that it IS possible to be a devout Christian AND an excellent scientist. Read morePublished on May 28 2004 by Todd J Martinez
This is an excellent book. To the reviewer who said Christianity is naive and how psychology has all the answers:
A. Read more
At last I read a book which convince me that bible is probably right. My major is food scince and I find that the author, despite his chemical physics background, tells the... Read morePublished on April 23 2004 by Andreas Kristanto
Professor Schaefer is refreshing, humorous, and insightful about a "hot topic" today -- the intersection of science and religion (or more specifically, Christianity). Read morePublished on April 21 2004 by Scott Luley
Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence does an excellent job of pulling together a history of the thinking of a large number of scientists over the several centuries of... Read morePublished on April 17 2004 by Bill
This is an intensely personal book. It should be required reading for every scientist who is willing to publically identify themselves as a Christian. Read morePublished on April 13 2004 by Gary D. Patterson
Dr. Henry Schaefer may be among the top living research chemists in the world but his deep Christian belief in an anthropomorphic God shows through and makes him ill suited to... Read morePublished on March 31 2004