Gregg Caruso sent us a note about this newly published collection of interviews—based on five questions—with 33 leading philosophers, scientists, theologians, apologists, and atheists. (Regular readers of this blog will recognize many of the names.) The work is edited by Caruso, the editor of the recently launched journal Science, Religion and Culture.
Steven Pinker has blurbed the book, as has theologian Philip Clayton, who writes:
Imagine that some of the world’s best-known scientists, philosophers, and religionists were to offer up their answers to an identical set of probing questions. Imagine that these articulate statements, composed by scholars who think deeply about science and religion, are then assembled in a single collection. That’s the volume you’re holding—a fascinating snapshot of where the dialogue stands today, and of what it has (and hasn’t yet) achieved.
Read a Q&A with the professor of psychology at The University of British Columbia about his new book, in which he looks at how humans went “from morally indifferent gods with limited powers, to the vast majority of people today worshipping Big Gods”—and what that shift meant for conflict and cooperation.
Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, and historian of science Ron Numbers have edited a new book of essays, Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins. They’ll be at Heffers bookstore in Cambridge tomorrow to officially introduce the book, in which experts look at the various ways that interest groups have used science to serve their social and political agendas, from the 15th century to today.
That’s the question that thirteen thinkers, including both scientists and theologians, respond to in a new booklet of short essays published by the Templeton Foundation as part of its “Big Questions” series.
Their answers? In short:
Michael Gazzaniga: Not really.
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: Yes and no, happily.
Aref Ali Nayed: No, it does not!
Alfred Mele: Only if we’re free.
Stanley Fish: It depends …
Christine Korsgaard: Yes, if …
Joshua Greene: Less than it should.
Jonathan Sacks: Reason isn’t enough.
John Kihlstrom: Yes, within limits.
Jonah Lehrer: Not so much.
Jean Bethke Elshtain: Not entirely.
Antonio Damasio: Yes and no.
Robert George: Yes, by nature.