Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early Twentieth Century Britain

  • by Peter J. Bowler
University of Chicago Press: 2001. 496 pp. $40, £24
Credit: DAVID NEWTON

These timely books form part of the rapidly expanding body of literature on the interrelations between science and religion. Bowler, an historian of science who disavows any religious convictions, has addressed a significant lacuna in existing scholarship. Whereas much has been written on the Victorian controversies, often focusing on the scientific naturalism and materialism spearheaded by Thomas Henry Huxley and John Tyndall, little attention has been paid to the opening decades of the twentieth century. The Scopes trial of 1925, which considered whether the state of Tennessee could prosecute John Scopes for teaching the theory of evolution in a public-school science class, is the best-known event of this period. But it had little impact on British writers, who inherited a very different set of religious and social assumptions compared with their American counterparts.

Bowler's main contention is that, during the early twentieth century, discussion of science–religion issues in Britain was dominated by reactions against Victorian naturalism. With agnosticism and materialism considered as passé, many scientists, theologians and popular writers sought a new rapprochement between science and religion. Although a few atheists, such as E. Ray Lankester and Arthur Keith, continued the assault on Christianity, they were considerably outnumbered by those who advocated some form of synthesis.

Yet there was no consensus on how this synthesis should be achieved. Responses ranged from Oliver Lodge's advocacy of spiritualism, which linked the worlds of matter and spirit, to Arthur Eddington's enthusiastic embrace of the new physics in 1927 which, he claimed, only then made religion “possible for a reasonable scientific man”. Whereas Bishop Ernest Barnes advocated an effervescent mixing of science with progressivist, evangelical Christianity, churchmen of a more conservative stripe, such as Charles Gore, sought a reconciliation that preserved traditional Christian doctrines.

One of the great strengths of Bowler's book is that it demonstrates the richness of science–religion discourse during this period and provides a helpful map of the terrain. Not only does Bowler discuss the more eminent scientists and theologians, whose positions have previously been analysed, but he sheds considerable light on several lesser-known figures. He also shows that issues of science and religion were subject to comment and controversy far beyond both professional communities. The public, for example, encountered these issues in newspapers, in the periodical press and in books aimed at a wide readership. Thus, authors as diverse as H. G. Wells, G. K. Chesterton and Bertrand Russell are included in Bowler's analysis. Given the considerable range of commentators discussed, it is not surprising that Bowler has paid less attention than he might to the broader social and political movements of the period that impinged on the religious and scientific life of Britain.

The lively interest in issues of science and religion during the opening third of the century and the attempt to transcend the Victorian impasse had given way to a less favourable atmosphere by the late 1930s. Increasing politicization and the rise of a new generation of scientists with different agendas led to a greater polarization of positions and a lowering of interest in the topic. Although the discussion of science and religion received a further boost in the postwar period, largely through Charles Coulson's writings, it has regained prominence only during the past few years. The other book under review reflects this trend.

Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and Faith in the 21st Century

  • by Denis Alexander
Lion Publishing: 2001. 544 pp. £20

As a molecular immunologist and committed Christian, Denis Alexander is troubled by two popular prejudices of our age. One is the opposition to science (which has sometimes been promulgated in the name of religion); the other is the assumption that science and religion are locked in necessary conflict (a belief that is often advanced in the name of science). To counteract both prejudices, Alexander has written an introductory and wide-ranging text that is intended to encourage the reader to adopt a more tolerant position, particularly on the issue of science and religion, on which atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins have grabbed the public's attention.

To engage this topic, Alexander has to clear the undergrowth by introducing an extensive range of issues that concern both scientific knowledge and religious knowledge (as opposed to belief). Although he acknowledges the role of social factors, he adopts a critical realist stance towards science, rejecting not only the dogmatic image of science that is often conveyed to the public, but also the threat of relativism. On this and other epistemological issues, he conceives close parallels between science and Christianity. Although some of these correspondences are more convincing than others, they not only refute the much-vaunted conflict thesis but also indicate how science and religion can be located in the same epistemological frame.

Alexander also insists that the theory of evolution has neither religious nor metaphysical implications, and should therefore not be extrapolated into such areas as evolutionary ethics. Although many practising scientists will support his position, it cannot be implemented because, as Bowler's study shows, reflection on the wider connotations of scientific theories has proved both important and attractive to many writers, including some scientists. Alexander's strategy of guarding science against questionable implications nevertheless enables him to combat both the anti-religious scientism of atheists such as Dawkins and the anti-evolutionism of creationists. Proponents of both positions, he claims, have misunderstood both science and religion. Indeed, proponents of these twin heresies have misinterpreted the opening verses of Genesis, which should not be read as a proto-scientific account describing how the world came into existence, but should be understood in the context of the creation stories that were current at the time it was written.

Alexander also provides a long and informative overview of the history of science–religion interactions from the ancients to the Victorian controversies surrounding darwinism and materialism. From this survey he draws the possibly over-optimistic conclusion that, in the past, science and religion have interacted in many different ways and to the benefit of both parties. Interestingly, his historical survey stops short of the period that is illuminated by Bowler's book. Although some of Alexander's arguments reflect those used in the period discussed by Bowler, Alexander's contribution to science and religion helps to move the subject into the twenty-first century.