Top 8 Recently Reviewed Books on Religion & Science

Modern science - and especially modern physics and quantum mechanics - can be very difficult to understand, in part because they describe ideas which can appear very strange to us. Does this justify relying upon supernatural and mystical explanations for the universe, however? If modern science describes the universe in a manner that doesn't appear to make sense logically, does this mean that modern science validates ancient religious beliefs?

Spiritual, religious, and theistic beliefs have been widely used to explain things about our universe - the origin of life, morality, and even the origin of the universe itself. Are such attempted explanations successful, or is a thoroughgoing naturalism preferable? Is there anything about the universe which suggests that a god of any sort exists?

Debates about the compatibility of science and religion are regular features in academic discussions. On the one side we have those who argue that there isn't any conflict, perhaps because the two subjects deal with different issues or perhaps because "true religion" is always in accordance with "reality" as described by science and nature. Others, however, insist that religion and science operate from fundamentally different methodologies and will inevitably bump up against each other...

For Tertullian, writing in the early 3rd century, the question was "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" The implied answer was that Athens and Jerusalem had nothing relevant in common, and therefore that the dominant philosophies of Greek culture had no interest or application for Christian faith. The same question, and mirror answer, occupy a book by Richard H. Schlagel.

What provides the best framework for understanding life and the universe? Is it a religion which relies upon the premise that a supernatural realm or being exists, or rather a thoroughly secular worldview which employs naturalism in science, ethics and politics? That is the question which Kai Nielsen addresses in his book, 'Naturalism and Religion.'

Epistemology is a difficult subject. How do we know what we know - and indeed, how can we know anything at all? Assuming that we can know anything, is there any way to ground that knowledge rationally? Is there any value to insisting on rational beliefs, or are any ad hoc explanations sufficient? As difficult as these questions are, how can they possibly be addressed in a chlidren's book?

Biotechnology is advancing at a rapid pace - far faster than most anyone could have realistically predicted even just a few years ago. Our ability to manipulate the human genome is growing almost every day. One of the consequences of this is that we have learned a great deal about human embryos, and if things go as expected, we may be able to make use of them for medical treatments. But should we?

Religion and science seem to be forever in conflict, but is such a perception really accurate? Must science and religion conflict, or is there any way for them to be made more compatible? According to George A. Erickson, Christianity has played a crucial role in the suppression of scientific research and development, ultimately to the detriment of all.