Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science
Entire articles may be obtained at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.1966.1.issue-1/issuetoc. Please note that Zygon subscribers must log in. Others may have to pay a small fee to acquire the entire article.
Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
1 (1), March 1966

Table of Contents

Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science by The Editors

Zygon, the Greek term for anything which joins two bodies, especially the yoking or harnessing of a team which must effectively pull together, is a symbol for this journal whose aim is to reunite the split team, values and knowledge, where co-ordination is essential for a viable dynamics of human culture.

We respond to the growing fears that the widening chasm in twentieth-century culture between values and knowledge, or good and truth, or religion and science, is disruptive if not lethal for human destiny. In this split, the traditional faiths and philosophies, which once informed men of what is of most sacred concern for them, have lost their credibility and hence their power. Yet human fulfillment or salvation in the age of science requires not less but more insight and conviction concerning life’s basic values and moral requirements.

Zygon has rich connotations in the sciences, where it supplies the biological term “zygote,” designating the union of the two gametes or complementary halves of the genetic code essential for the continuation and advancement of life. Here we have the image of two sets of different blueprints for life, each from an ancient lineage. And it is only by their effective yoking that a new generation or a more effective pattern of life can emerge. At the same time, zygon has symbolized in religion the union between man and the ultimate reality on which his life depends, as in the Christian “for my yoke [zygos in the Greek New Testament] is easy [or good],” or as in the Sanskrit and Hindu cognate yoga, meaning union of self with the universal reality.

Ordinarily, in the evolution of human cultures, beliefs and practices about man’s most sacred concerns necessarily have been integrated with the concurrent general beliefs and practices—the sciences (philosophies, world views, myths) and technologies. Disruption by historical changes of this integration between basic values and science, or between sacred and secular knowledge, automatically brings about pressures for new adaptations of one or the other or both to reintegrate the organization of the culture. Failure to reintegrate satisfactorily has spelled the death of cultures or civilizations.

One might say that because of its radical mutations the cultural “gamete” from father science has not yet found any corresponding gamete from mother religion with which it can unite to form a workable new culture for future civilization. A valid union may require mutations or reformations in religious belief systems, or further mutations in scientific belief systems, or both. The journal Zygon is established as a workshop for those seeking ways to unite, in full integrity, the sciences with what men hold to be their sacred values, their religion. …
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00426.x

Theological Resources from the Sciences

Theological Resources from the Sciences by The Editors

The major articles and their commentaries in this issue of Zygon were written for a conference on “A Reconsideration of the Relation of Theology to the Sciences.” Called to inaugurate the Committee on Theology and the Sciences of Meadville Theological School of Lombard College, the conferees met January 18-19, 1965, at the Center for Continuing Education of the University of Chicago. …
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00427.x

Theological Resources from the Physical Sciences

Can Physics Contribute to Theology? by Sanborn C. Brown

Perhaps the most spectacular development in recent history has been the truly amazing rise of the importance of science, and the effect it is having on every facet of human life. No less amazing, particularly to the scientist, is the equally spectacular lack of understanding of the scientific endeavor which the non-scientist not only exhibits but seems to revel in.

A present-day educated man would be disdainfully scornful of anyone who knew nothing of the writings of Dante or Homer, the paintings of EI Greco or Renoir, or the music of Telemann or Verdi. Yet, this same man is heard to brag that he never could pass elementary physics and that high-school biology made him sick at his stomach.

The intellectual of the future not only will know something of science but will be so attuned to its intellectual discipline that he can use its relevant teachings to make progress in his own field of learning. We are gathered together here not to look backward or even at the present but forward to the future to try to plot a course for theology in the modern idiom—to search for the relevancy of all aspects of the modern world to the highest aspirations and goals toward which men strive.

Specifically what I want to address my remarks to is the thesis that theologians have much to learn from the methodology and intellectual discipline of the scientist. In my opinion a knowledge of the intellectual procedures in common use by a research physicist in his search for the organization of the universe is far from irrelevant in developing a modern epistemology for theology. …
Sanborn C. Brown is professor of physics and associate dean of the Graduate School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00428.x

Commentary on Theological Resources from the Physical Sciences by F. S. C. Northrop

Brown has approached his topic through epistemology. The wisdom of this is reinforced by a statement made by Einstein, near the end of his life, about the significance of recent physics and his own important part therein: “The reciprocal relation of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled.”¹

It is relevant to our present concern to show more in detail why this is the case, thereby revealing that what is true of physics is true also of religion and the humanities generally. We may begin by asking what it was in Einstein’s own experience as a physicist which made epistemology so important for his particular science.

Briefly put, the answer is that a “primitive and muddled” conception of what one knows in physics was prevalent among physicists at the opening of this century because of an erroneous notion of how one knows it. Since the science of the how of knowing anything is epistemology, an epistemological examination of the relation between the basic concepts of physics and the observable data became necessary in order to remove the prevalent misconceptions and make possible the new way of thinking about old, as well as new, observable data which occurs in Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity and, after him, in quantum mechanics. …
notes
¹ Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. Paul A. Schilpp (Evanston, Ill.: Library of Living Philosophers, 1949), pp. 683-84.

F. S. C. Northrop is professor emeritus of philosophy and law, Yale University.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00429.x

Commentary on Theological Resources from the Physical Sciences by Ian G. Barbour

Let me first underscore Brown’s last point about the importance of analyzing wholes as well as parts. A statistical ensemble has relatively little unity but can usefully be treated as a unit. There are other cases in physics in which a more highly integrated system is analyzed as a whole. For example, one has to write the quantum wave functions for an atom as a whole; the separate electrons lose their identity, so one cannot even talk about electron A and electron B as if they were distinguishable. The Pauli Exclusion Principle which governs the addition of electrons to the total configuration of an atom could not be reduced to any kind of force acting on individual electrons. Or again, one calculates energy levels for a solid-state structure or crystal as a total system.

Now the importance of dealing with wholes as well as parts becomes even more significant in biology, and eventually in our view of man. On the one hand we must recognize that the whole is a collection of parts: man is a biochemical mechanism, programmed by DNA molecules, etc. Man is indeed composed of nothing but atoms; yet in man there occur patterns of activity and types of event which do not occur in separate atoms. So we must also use distinctive concepts and theories which refer to higher levels of organization in integrated systems. There may be events which are not specifiable in terms of parts alone, or system laws which require what Northrop calls a relational rather than atomistic approach. The point is that one can use a variety of types of explanatory model at different levels. We can talk about human personality, and about DNA, without assuming that knowledge of the latter somehow makes the former obsolete. We can acknowledge that there are interlevel laws, without accepting the kind-of reductionism which ends by asserting that religion is really psychology, and psychology is biology, and biology is just complicated chemistry and physics. So I would want to defend the importance of theories and concepts dealing with wholes at a variety of levels, starting with the atom and going on to the organism and to man. …
Ian G. Barbour is chairman of the Department of Religion and professor of physics, Carleton College.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00430.x

Commentary on Theological Resources from the Physical Sciences by John F. Hayward

Theologians have been dealing with boundary conditions for years and have been taking criticism for the habit, especially from their colleagues in the sciences. Human life poses its own questions about the boundaries. Religions respond to these questions and theologians, in turn, seek to understand the religious responses. The merest child wants to know where he came from and where his ancestors began. He also contemplates his own death in wonder and in fear. Unless these boundary questions of ultimate origin and ultimate destiny can be given some formulation and response, however vague or tentative, the actions of the steady state are suspended in nothingness and all motivation and explanation are seriously undercut. Hence the perennial struggle in human culture to conceive of God, to understand the relation of man to the drama of a sacred history, and to envision an immortality of human quality and effort beyond death. Yet every time theologians go out to the boundary of the beginning of man or the beginning of time, or to the other boundary, to the end of man or the end of time, we are asked to forget such speculations and are called back to the steady state. We are asked to pay attention to man as he now is and to his powers and problems as they now are. It is alleged that the questions of human existence could not possibly be answered by considerations drawn from the boundary. But now I am pleased to learn from a physicist that it is important to study boundary conditions. Therefore, some comparison of method is in order.

I do not know how you get out to the boundary in physics, but I would like to try to say by way of stimulating discussion how we get out to the boundary in theology. …
John F. Hayward is professor of theology, Meadville Theological School.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00431.x

Commentary on Theological Resources from the Physical Sciences by John R. Platt

The major point I want to make concerns the relation of physics to reality. I applaud what Brown and Northrop have said about the power of physical methods of thinking and about the need for consistent epistemology and careful use of language. But I find myself in considerable disagreement with what I take to be their epistemology, and I think it is worth making a brief outline of a radically different view in which the basis of scientific knowledge connects much more closely with theological problems. There is coming to be a small but important group of physical thinkers, communications theorists, psychologists, and philosophers who take a more personal and existential and manipulative view of epistemology, of what a man can know and how he can know about the world and his relation to it. This personal-operational viewpoint was foreshadowed by Ernst Mach in his Analysis of Sensations, and it has been developed by Percy Bridgman in his final book, The Way Things Are, by Erwin Schrödinger in his little book Mind and Matter, by Michael Polanyi in Personal Knowledge, and by David Bohm in the Appendix to his book on Relativity.

In this view, which I share, the blazing central reality in which all perception and scientific knowledge are rooted is here-and-now personal, subjective, holistic experience, including all of what we try to separate more or less accurately into immediate sensations, memories, knowledge, predictions, values, decisions, and actions. This is the “eternal present,” the “canvas on which the picture is painted,” in Schrödinger’s phrase, and perhaps close to what some have called Thatness or the Ground of Being. It is a totality which is Nameless, which is No-Thing, which “cannot be pointed to” because it precedes and includes any separation into objects and self, persons who use language, and pointing and naming. It is not an experience but the set of all experiences, an immediate-totality-field or T-field, as a mathematician or physicist might say. …
John R. Platt is associate director, Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00432.x

Theological Resources from the Biological Sciences

The Search for Common Ground by George Wald

Man’s endless effort to know and understand is epitomized in science. Science is a systematic attempt to understand all reality. Facts—information—serve only as counters in the argument. The business of science is to discover order in nature, so that man can feel increasingly at home in an orderly universe.

One hears a great deal of the alienation of men from the modern world. That alienation, to the degree that it exists, may involve in part an estrangement from technology; yet it is only through misunderstanding that it can be supposed to involve science. Science as knowing can only help in integrating man with his environment. Any other view would be a plea for ignorance. If there is any quarrel with science, it can be resolved only with more and better science.

I think there has been such a quarrel with science, but I trust it is now past. It involves the fact that beginning roughly a century ago, science began to undercut drastically man’s traditional beliefs; and for a time it was so busy clearing the ground, destroying old misconceptions, that it substituted nothing for them. But I think that time has passed. Science has gone from that period of iconoclastic analysis to synthesis. In recent years it has achieved a unity that it never possessed before and a unified view of our world. I think that that unified view offers perhaps the greatest assurance that men can now experience. …
George Wald is professor of biology at Harvard University.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00433.x

Commentary on Resources from the Biological Sciences by Hermann J. Muller

I agree with Wald in feeling that science has a great deal in its content to offer to religion. Biology has shown clearly that what we call consciousness in its higher forms—the rationality, love, and charity which are considered by some of us to be the most admirable attributes in higher forms (at least) of religion—is the product of a long, long biological evolution. These forms of consciousness only come into existence with the workings of very highly specialized material, but they do exist, we do have them, and this is something which should give man more confidence in his being and in his possibilities. He has these attributes in a much higher degree than does anything else he knows, and having this knowledge, it is no longer necessary for him to look for external justification of the urges of his nature as expressed in these higher attributes.

Wald spoke very eloquently in defense of knowledge, regardless of its practical applicability. I am not against the application of knowledge, but I think that anyone who is truly human must take the position that knowledge is its own excuse for being even if it has no applications. If our ancestors had not had the urge to acquire knowledge even when they did not see any application for it, they would have remained behind. Nor is it the unexpected applications that are the excuse for knowledge.

We are the first beings who have come to know the universe to this extent; that should be enough of a thrill for us without knowing what we can do with it. However, I think it is also a part of our nature to use our knowledge; and it is part of our history, a part of the natural selection by which we became what we are, that we did use our knowledge in behalf of our survival and expansion. …
Hermann J. Muller is Distinguished Service Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, Indiana University.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00434.x

Commentary on Resources from the Biological Sciences by Robert B. Tapp

It seems to me what Wald is suggesting here is something like this: “Hail to thee, blithe bird, spirit thou never wert.” In the seeming reduction of spirit to man, or life to man, the usual things that theologians over the centuries have felt were that all sorts of things were going to get left out along the way, and that you are just going to lop off crucial realities one by one as you go through this reduction process, and in the end there will be nothing left. I think it is clear from the prospectus that our committee agrees that there may now be rich things in the sciences for religion, whatever may have been the case in the eighteenth century or the nineteenth century. What Wald has given is a beautiful setting forth of this rich lode.

There are several gambits that theologians use in their encounters with scientists that now seem ruled out. The theologian’s argument runs something like this, “Well, that may be true, but by your methods you will never be able to know life or creation,” and this gives him a little preserve that science, no matter what its evidence, can never completely undermine. I think, from the picture of the world viewed biochemically as we have had it here, that ploy will work no longer. Theologians will no doubt continue to use it, but I suggest that the peril is very great. …
Robert B. Tapp is professor of philosophy of religion, Meadville Theological School.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00435.x

Commentary on Resources from the Biological Sciences by Alfred E. Emerson

It seems to me that one of the experiences that we all had in listening to Wald illustrates one aspect in which religion and science have something in common. I think everyone felt a sense of wonder concerning the fascinating panorama of existence in time and space that he allowed us to glimpse and the awesome quality of the story that he told. His words have been referred to here as “inspiring,” as “poetic,” as “beautiful”—terms that are seldom applied to scientific discourse. I would go further to say that you have heard a sermon. Awesome wonder of existence is the motivation of the scientist and the motivation of the religionist alike. We derive this inspiration and this feeling from knowledge, it is true, but we also have a deep emotional response to it.

I would like to pose a question to the religionists: What is the difference between the inspiration of scientific discovery and what might be called the religious experience? I, myself, think it possible that these responses have some similarity and that, in this respect, scientist and religionist share a profound awareness. …
Alfred E. Emerson is professor of zoology, emeritus, University of Chicago.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00436.x

Commentary on Resources from the Biological Sciences by Bernard M. Loomer

I looked at the topic of the conference, and I read that it was something to the effect of the theological resources to be derived from the sciences (in this case the biological sciences). I took further assumption that the conference in turn could assume that biology could speak to theology and theology to the biological sciences, although in this particular conference the focus was upon theology from the point of view of these several sciences.

As I listened to Wald, I got the impression that he was answering the conference topic by saying that biology can furnish theology for theology. If that is his answer to the question, I would have to say I regard it as an inadequate answer. That is, I do not regard biology as being able to provide theology for theology, and I do not happen to think that this particular theology Wald is advocating is very good theology. It may be very good biology (I am not competent to judge this), but I do not think this is where theology lives and dies and grows and matures, as one contemplates the universe as Wald contemplates it.

I see no reason why a theology or a religion that underlies a theology need reject anything that Wald says goes on in this universe, and I will never deny that we are composed of atoms and molecules of various shapes and sizes and varieties, and it is wonderful to view the world in this fashion. I get thrilled and I get excited, but I do not get moved by it. This is not what causes me to live or to die; maybe it causes you to live or die as a religious being, and maybe this causes Wald to live and to die, but I will take my stand as a Christian theologian. I do it out of humility because I do not think I know enough, nor do I have enough capacity to be really something else. I am trying to learn about these other religions, but during this lifetime I expect, by and large, I will probably identify myself as a Christian. Maybe I am not a very good theologian, but I am working with trying to be Christian, since you have to be something, and where you are born and all the rest of it has a great deal to do with what you are going to be. So there is no “theology in general.” There may be biological science in general, but there is not any such thing as religion in general. There are only specific religions, so that biology would have to speak specifically to specific theologies, at least as a first step. …
Bernard M. Loomer is professor of philosophical theology, Berkeley Baptist Divinity School.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00437.x

Theological Resources from the Social Sciences

Rituals: Sacred and Profane by Anthony F. C. Wallace

How does one recognize a religion? How does one know that the cultural aspect which one is observing is a religion and not a piece of economics, a political organization, a philosophy, or a game? The answer lies in the fundamental pattern, or structure, which the layman and the ethnographer alike recognize when they look at a society and which, whenever it is found, is called “religious,” despite the manifold diversity of its forms.

It is the fundamental premise of every religion—and this premise is religion’s defining characteristic—that souls, supernatural beings, and supernatural forces exist. Furthermore, there is a fundamental pattern of religion which would seem to be describable in terms of three levels of analysis: first, the thirteen universal categories of religious behavior, which are intuitively recognized by anthropologists, theologians, and laymen alike as the elementary particles of ritual: prayer, song, physiological exercise, exhortation, recitation of texts, simulation, touching things, taboo, feasts, sacrifice, congregation, inspiration, and symbolism; second, the threading of events of these ritual categories into sequences called ceremonies; third, the organization of ceremonies into complexes which we have labeled cult institutions; and finally, the religion of a society, which is describable only as a conglomeration of ritual (both calendrical and occasional) and belief system (including pantheon), mythology, and morality, whose components are logically integrated only at the level of cult institutions. …
Anthony F. C. Wallace is professor of anthropology and department chairman, University of Pennsylvania.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00438.x

Commentary on Resources from the Social Sciences by Henry Nelson Wieman

Wallace has shown that religion is in a rather desperate predicament, and I think that is correct. Religion is groping to find its distinctive vocation in the present world situation. I also agree that religion is based upon ritual, but, as he says, that does not distinguish religion. Every sort of undertaking in life is based upon ritual. No baby can be reared without the ritual of caressing and hugging and cooing. One cannot maintain married life without a lot of rituals.

Ritual is absolutely indispensable in every serious undertaking. Science, too, has its rituals. It has its conferences where things are discussed, but those conferences are partly ritual to maintain esprit de corps and the co-operation and fellowship of scientists. Certainly government could not be maintained without rituals. So to say that religion is based upon rituals does not distinguish religion in any way. In fact, I would say that perhaps married life has more ritual in it than religion. …
Henry Wieman is professor emeritus of Christian theology, University of Chicago.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00439.x

Commentary on Resources from the Social Sciences by Melford Spiro

Wallace’s paper is certainly one of the finest syntheses of what we know about religion not only from anthropology but from the behavioral sciences in general. To find fault with it is difficult, and the only questions I want to raise are those not concerning the substantive and analytic aspects of the paper (with which I agree wholeheartedly) but with some of the latter parts of the paper concerning predictions for the future.

One could, of course, take issue with some minor points in the more analytic part of the paper. I am not sure I agree that ritual does take precedence over myth. Indeed, one could say that the very notion of ritual presupposes the priority of myth if only in the sense that it is the cognitive aspects of the myth upon which the efficacy of the ritual is predicated. In short, in order for me to perform a ritual, I have to believe in the first place that ritual is efficacious. …
Melford Spiro is professor of anthropology, University of Chicago.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00440.x

Commentary on Resources from the Social Sciences by Lawrence K. Frank

Conferences of this kind remind me of Proust’s statement that “each one can find lucidity only in those ideas which are in the same state of confusion as his own.”

As Julian Huxley reminded us some years ago, the human organism did not adapt to nature as did other organisms through specialization of body but, instead, remained plastic, flexible, and created a human way of life. This was done by using ideas and symbols to create a design for living, by transforming the actual world into a symbolic culture world. The function of that symbolic culture world was to enable the human organism to escape from the boredom of food, fighting, and fornication—to be able to create a world which had meaning and significance by transforming the environment (nature) and transforming human nature according to the ideas, beliefs, the myths by which he made human living significant.

If you take this viewpoint, as at least one way of approach, then we should ask ourselves, “How did man develop these ideas, these symbols, these rituals?” He did it by imagination, which sometimes has been called revelation. I prefer to think of it as a creative act, imposing order and meaning upon the world which was not apparent and curbing and regulating human function and behavior. This approach gives us a clue to the so-called human predicament, that man, as long as he lives, is and must function as an organism, exposed to all the impacts and signals that come from environment and subject to all the impulses and emotional reactions of his own urgings, but through enculturation and socialization he must learn to live as a personality in a symbolic world, regulating his conduct and all his relationships to other people in such a fashion that he conforms, if possible, to the requirements of that symbolic world. This symbolic world is of most importance for the human individual because it enables him to project his aspirations, his goal values, putting meaning into this organic existence and thereby distinguishing himself from other organisms. …
Lawrence K. Frank is an independent scholar in the psychosocial sciences, Belmont, Massachusetts.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00441.x

Commentary on Resources from the Social Sciences by Ralph Wendell Burhoe

Wallace’s fears that religion is on its way to extinction because a population educated in science will not be able to believe in “supernatural being and in supernatural forces which affect nature without obeying nature’s laws” are fears which a number of Christian theologians share to such an extent that they have recently produced a spate of papers and books proclaiming “God is dead” and at the same time proclaiming a Christian theology. Wallace, like them, wants to save religion somehow, and I think he is wiser than they in his insistence that a new theology must not be tied to “any recognizable human [italics mine] person, group, or institution.” But I share Spiro’s and also Wallace’s own recognition of the “apparent absurdity” of “a non-theistic theology.” From all that I know about religion and about science, I find Wallace’s analysis, in all respects except this one, such a brilliant and valid synthesis of the realities involved that I shall confine …
Ralph Wendell Burhoe is professor of theology and the sciences, Meadville Theological School.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00442.x

Convocation Addresses

Science and the Search for a Rational Religious Faith by Donald Szantho Harrington

Problem of Power without Purpose

Modern man is confronted by many dilemmas. Paramount among these is his achievement of incredible power over the material universe without any corresponding certainty of purpose as to how that power should be used. The same science which has produced an explosion of material power has also undermined the foundations of the religions upon which man previously had depended for his sense of purpose and value. Power without purpose is the modern age’s principal problem.

A parallel problem derives from man’s achievement of facilities for communication which will ultimately require the organization of all the nations and peoples of the world into a single system of human relationship or government, without the necessary corollary achievement of the human motivation to overcome the national and religious divergencies which separate and divide mankind.

It is important that we understand the cause of our current spiritual uncertainty on a world scale, for this is at the root of our problem. It is derived, in its essence, I believe, from a deep philosophic schizophrenia suffered by most of contemporary man which has caused the paralysis of his moral sense and capacity for choice. It stems from the split that took place back in the beginning of the modern age when, with the rise of science, the unity of civilization and culture enjoyed briefly by the medieval world was split asunder. From that point on, religion and science have gone their separate ways, occupying separate halves of the split mind of man. The result is a human being today suffering a sense of severe alienation from his universe, fearful of the material forces he has let loose, suspicious of many of his fellowmen, and uncomfortable with most of his past. This has resulted in an all-pervasive anxiety which has turned the hour of man’s scientific triumph over the material universe into dust and ashes in his mouth. …
Donald Szantho Harrington is minister of The Community Church. New York.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00443.x

Introductory Remarks to the Convocation: A Theological School Looks to the Sciences by Malcolm R. Sutherland, Jr.

Meadville, through its Committee on Theology and the Sciences, makes no pretense of initiating a new kind of conversation. Many of you at this conference have systematically participated in this dialogue for years, whether through conferences on science and values as sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, or in the conferences of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, or elsewhere. Indeed, the fruits of your earlier work have largely inspired us to take even more seriously this dialogue.

Meadville believes that the time has come when these conversations and the fruits of research which they inspire must be brought to bear upon the professional preparation of men for the ministry and subsequently upon religious faith generally. Here a student’s emerging theological and philosophical formulations will be systematically confronted by relevant concepts from today’s sciences—relating religious theory to the insights, conceptions, and models of reality of contemporary science.

This is not to suggest that theology is being replaced at Meadville by physics or biology or psychotherapy or by any other discipline but, rather, that the theological engagement at Meadville is to be undertaken in the context of disciplined familiarity with specific aspects of contemporary knowledge about man and his total environment, as discovered through and interpreted by the various sciences. …
Malcolm R. Sutherland, Jr., is president of Meadville Theological School.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00444.x

Reviews

The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony by C. F. von Weizsäcker, reviewed by John B. Cobb, Jr.

John B. Cobb, Jr.; School of Theology at Claremont
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00445.x

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew D. White, reviewed by Bruce Mazlish

Bruce Mazlish; Massachusetts Institute of Technology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00445.x

Nature and God by L. Charles Birch, reviewed by Theodosius Dobzhansky

Theodosius Dobzhansky; Rockefeller Institute
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00445.x

Notes

Some Roots of Zygon by The Editors

Zygon has one root in a concern with the relation between the sciences and human values on the part of an interdisciplinary group of intellectual leaders in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. This concern was especially stimulated about twenty-five years ago under the leadership of astronomer Harlow Shapley and neurophysiologist Hudson Hoagland, then president and secretary of the Academy, respectively. Under these and many other scientists and scholars, the Academy began to devote meetings and conferences to elucidate what science and scholarship might reveal about what is good or evil for man.

In 1950, under the stimulus of a group led by its executive officer, Ralph W. Burhoe, the Academy established a Committee on Science and Values, the charter document of which stated: “We believe that the sudden changing of man’s physical and mental climate brought about by science and technology in the last century has rendered inadequate ancient institutional structures and educational forms, and that the survival of human society depends on a re-formation of man’s world view and ethics, by grounding them in the revelations of modern science as well as on tradition and intuition. … It is our hope that the fragmentary sketches of the cosmos and man, made by the various scholarly and scientific disciplines, when pieced together and looked upon as a whole, may reveal a picture of the situation on the basis of which one can make sounder judgments for the ordering of individual and social life.” …
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00446.x



Tables of Contents, Articles & Abstracts