SCIENCE & RELIGION

June 1999
		Ian Barbour, a Carleton College professor emeritus, was awarded the 1999 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in recognition of efforts to create a dialogue between the worlds of science and religion. He answers your questions about his work.

Forum introduction Where does science end and religion begin? Can theologians embrace science? Can biblical literalists be brought into the discussion? Can scientific questions be reconciled with religious faith? How can religion and science be reconciled with other disciplines?     May 28, 1999 Elizabeth Farnsworth interviews 1999 Templeton Prize winner Ian Barbour. May 17, 1999 Prof. Barbour's Templeton Prize acceptance speech. Prof. Barbour's biography. A history of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.     The John Templeton Foundation Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences Carleton College Yale University Duke University Swarthmore College

John Bobbitt of Houston, TX, asks: Many theologians accept the findings of science, and try to reconcile with religion. But there are many dogmatists who insist that the Bible is inerrant, and any discrepancy is unacceptable (i.e. wrong). How do we approach those people? Particularly since they are active in the political process and make religious based decisions that affect us daily. Prof. Barbour responds: It is understandable that in a time of rapid social change and uncertainty about moral values, some people will seek certainty in inerrant scriptural texts. But many of the most revered interpeters of scripture have recognized that some passages should be interpreted metaphorically. St. Augustine said that the Bible is not a textbook in astronomy; it tells us "how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the teaching of creationism in science classes in the public schools promotes a particular religious viewpoint and violates the separation of church and state. But I am also critical of scientists or science teachers who promote a philosophy of evolutionary naturalism as if it were a scientific conclusion, or who say that evolution is incompatible with theism. They are making philosophical claims that are not part of science itself. We must recognize the differences between the questions asked by scientists and those asked by theologians before there can be fruitful dialogue between them.