Science and wonders: conversations about science and belief (1996)
edited by Russell Stannard. London: Faber & Faber.
Review by Bill Palmer

Books about science and religion currently appear to be in vogue as do books that try to understand a number of scientists through the in-depth interview. This book attempts both tasks simultaneously. Also it is the book of a radio program of interviews. Russell Stannard asks important questions to a variety of religious leaders and well-known scientists. Stannard interviewed forty people and arranged the views expressed into five overarching themes (chapters)- The cosmos: Life: The mind: Room for God?: Science and religion.

The quality of the book depends on the selection of those interviewed and whether their views are interesting, on the degree to which the questions probe the deeply held convictions of those being interviewed and on how well these views are woven together to make a coherent and complete narrative.

Of the forty persons I would say that 20-25% were really well-known, whereas the remainder would only be known by specialists in their fields of study. It may be that both science and religion have difficulties in creating an adequate gender balance, but with three female interviewees out of forty, one feels the task was not seriously attempted. This fact alone may prejudice many readers against the book, but though a serious flaw I do not believe it to be necessarily fatal.

The books starts on the conventional historical split between science and religion as being the Galileo affair (circa 1616) and asks one scientist about this section of history. The problem is that there are a myriad of views about Galileo's motives actions and treatment and that the one fairly orthodox view seems vaguely unsatisfactory. The book is like this throughout- one wants to ask more questions of particular interviewees, but the narrative moves inexorably onwards. However that is the nature of this sort of book. The narrator hurries us on at arguments where we might wish to linger. He manages a good degree of continuity amongst arguments that are necessarily fragmented. He uses a conversational tone and reintroduces particular interviewees whenever he has need of their views to fit the themes he has in mind.

Nonetheless although there were some excellent arguments advanced: overall there is considerable difficulty of writing continuous prose which keeps track of the full gamut of arguments. In other words the book is a somewhat artificial creation, but for those already interested in this debate it can make entertaining reading.

Originally published in STANT Journal in 1997