Alex Bentley, ed. The Edge of Reason: Science and Religion in Modern Society (London and New York: Continuum Books, 2008), xv +222 Pps., $19.95
Alex Bentley is Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at Durham University, UK. In this title, he brings together nineteen different contributions (including the foreword by Mary Midgley) to accompany his introduction that with one voice claim that there should be a rational relation between science and religion in the twenty-first century. They all affirm that Evolutionists are right in taking Creationists to task, but affirm simultaneously that evolutionists need to learn enough about religion to comment on its matters. Although this book does not dwell on metaphysical questions, it does use them as part of a case that argues that the complex issues of cultural evolution, science and religious belief in society require knowledge of a rich variety of belief systems with reference to anthropology, archaeology, biology, natural science, philosophy and theology. As the book title indicates, this voyage takes us to the ‘edge of reason’. In what follows, select contributions shall be highlighted so as to attain a better understanding of what the book entails.
The five essays that compose part one of this text, all address the question of whether ‘scientists challenge religious beliefs in modern society?’ Setting the tone for the other contributors in the first chapter to the volume, Denis Alexander contends that it has been a long time since historians of science have actually held to the notion of their being an inherent conflict between science and religion, and that those who continue to promulgate such often have an atheistic agenda (ref. Dawkins et.al.); he argues that we would do well to move beyond the simplistic ‘warfare’ model to more complex alternatives for the relationship between science and religion. Alexander suggests that scientists should stick to what they are good at doing – science – and not broach into religious matters.
Part two is similarly composed of five essays, all of which are centered on answering the question of whether ‘religion is inevitable?’ Significant from this section is the essay by Lewis Wolpert (chapter 8), an essay in which he contends that religion ultimately arose as our ancestors wanted to determine the cause of events that affected their lives; this cognitive imperative led to an evolutionary advantage that increased human survival, he contends. Steven Mithen, likewise in part two (chapter 9) argues similarly about the derivation of religion, but adds that humans had(ve) a predisposition to religious beliefs insomuch as making their derivation almost inevitable (93-94).
An interesting question is addressed by the contributors to part three of this volume: ‘Is religion harmful?’ Notable from this set of four essays is David Sloan Wilson’s contention that ‘Richard Dawkins is wrong about religion’ (chapter 12). To be sure, both Wilson and Dawkins are self-professed atheists, but Wilson contends herein that Dawkins misrepresents the work of his colleagues who hold to theistic beliefs, and concludes that Dawkins is just ‘another angry atheist’ providing his personal opinions about religion (136).
Part four is composed of four essays that all relate to theme of whether ‘science itself can inspire spiritual wonder?’. I would like to point out two essays from this section of the book, one from John Hedley Brooke, and the other from David Wilkinson. In chapter fifteen, Brooke orients part four by exploring the question of whether scientific discovery can actually be a religious experience (?), and it is important to acknowledge that by ‘religious experience’, Brooke is referring to a sense of the transcendent; he concludes that there is indeed a trajectory from an appreciation of beauty in nature to deeper reflections on human destiny (religion writ large). Wilkinson contributes chapter 18, a chapter in which he probes intimations of natural theology in contemporary cosmology. Significantly, he contends that there has been a revival of design-like arguments in contemporary physics, arguments characterized by there being more questions raised than answered, relating to ‘pointers’ rather than ‘proof’, and being more emotive in content than explanatory (191).
In sum, the supposed confrontation between science and religion has defined much popular – and public – debate about religion in recent years. However, this collection of essays gives voice to social scientists, natural scientists and theologians whose experience holds direct relevance on these major issues, and encourages a more forgiving dialogue between these two disciplines. It is a worthy read.
Bradford McCall
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA