From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
Date: Thursday, 11 March 1999 2:42
Subject: Re: Polkinghorne: Philosophy, Science and Faith


In aus.religion.christian Rowland Croucher <> wrote:
> On another post Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:

> + I would dearly love to quote John Polkinghorne at this point. I'll
> + bet Rowland would know of him... Polkinghorne is an English physicist
> + with a reasonably good international reputation in cosmological
> + physics. He has since become a priest, and has a (surprisingly)
> + traditional or orthodox theology. He has a considerable interest
> + in the dialog between faith and science, and you might like some
> + of his books.
> +
> + Polkinghorne says that as a cosmologist, he *often* received
> + ideas and suggestions from people who had thought about time
> + space and eternity and the universe, and who had come up with
> + ingenious explanatory ideas.
> +
> + ALL of them were totally worthless. [End of quote from Chris]
>
> Yes, I've had an interest in Polkinghorne for some time, but I labour under
> the handicap of being neither a scientist nor philosopher...
>
> By general consent, he is probably the English-speaking world's most eminent
> scientist-turned-theologian.

I agree.

> If you want to meet him and his ideas, visit http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/

Yes indeed. Able, I also would recommend this site.

Note that I am not suggesting this because I agree with him! I disagee
fundamentally with his whole world view. But I think you would find
much to agree with.

I do endorse much of what he says about science, about scientists,
and about scientific knowledge. In fact, I could cut and paste
from his writings to answer many of the points Able and I are
exploring together in the matter of "eternity past"! Polkinghorne
is a far better writer than I am, with a much better grasp both
of cosmology and of the range of theological thought.

Have a look at the two lectures linked from that page Rowland
has cited above, Able, and let me know what you think.

> His most comprehensive book is Science & Christian Belief and the latest
> (1998), a series of lectures at Yale published as Belief in God in an age of
> Science.
>
> Chris, (and anyone on ukr) what have you read by him? How would you
> summarize his core beliefs (these days)?

I've only read one of his books, and I forget the title.
I've glanced at a couple of others.

I would not care to summarise his beliefs; but I will say the
impression I have received (which is not the same thing!).

In another thread I called him "surprising", and Able picked me up
on that.  Let me say rather than his beliefs are "unusual" for a
high profile internationally reputed scientist. I think Polkinghorne
might agree with that assessment!

His theological position appears to be quite orthodox. He
believes in a God who acts in the world. Be believes that God
was uniquely present in the person of Jesus. He believes in a
physical resurrection. He believes that Christian belief can be
intellectually satisfying and supported. He believes in prayer,
and in a relationship between God and human individuals. He accepts
the major creeds of the church.

He is, on the other hand, totally orthodox in his science. He
accepts standard big bang cosmology, with a 15 billion year
old universe. He accepts (though alas this is not explicit
in any page that I have seen) that this is a bound on time
itself, and not merely an indication of the age of the
universe in time. He does not regard God as an "origin" for
the universe at the beginning of time, but as the underlying
basis of the universe. That is, he does not regard creation
as being mainly about an origin in time. He accepts our animal
origins as illuminated by biology. He regards theology as
being informed by science, though he also feels that theology
serves to inform science also, and that these two disciplines
together inform our understanding of the universe.

It is in the latter point that I personally part company with
Polkinghorne; but I nevertheless think he is well worth reading
and considering.

Ultimately, I do not find him convincing on the subject of God.

Cheers -- Chris