Questions of Truth - Reviews

Reviews

Julian Baggini, writing in the Financial Times, said that Polkinghorne has no problems reconciling his faith with his science and suggests that "despite the complexity of some of the scientific issues discussed", the book "is a commendably clear read". He says "it is a pity that the people most likely to buy this book are those simply seeking intellectual reassurance that their faith is not irrational. Those who would most benefit from reading it are in fact fundamentalists who think that evolutionary science must be wrong, and overconfident atheists who believe that the religious are manifestly irrational.”

A. C. Grayling wrote a highly critical review in the New Humanist. He states that the responses to questions concerning science and religion boil down to three strategies, God of the gaps, inference to the best explanation, and religion and science explain truths in different domains. He considers the first two refutable by undergraduates, and for the third strategy to work, he contends that one has to "cherry-pick which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic and which as literally true" in order to conveniently avoid the possibility of direct and testable confrontation with science. He concludes the review by expressing his outrage at the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of the book, as in his opinion this amounts to having "the superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."

Physics World commends the authors for handling the diverse readership, skeptics and believers, in a "remarkably even-handed way", but laments that concerns with specifics of Christian doctrine may limit the book's appeal; however, scientifically minded readers may find the extensive appendices a good starting point. The reviewer concludes that the book provides valuable insight for those interested in the science and religion debate.

In addition, some periodicals have included brief reviews. Publishers Weekly said, "Many readers will welcome this accessible format, but some may find the blurring of science and theology confusing." The Library Journal described it as intriguing and a thought-provoking work, and said that John Polkinghorne was a “a kind of antidote to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for the intellectual theist or Christian." Episcopal Life says the book offers "some interesting conclusions". Ian Sample, reflecting over his interview with Polkinghorne for The Guardian, stated that there was much in the book that he found offensive, especially the idea that God needs to remain hidden from his creation lest they be completely overwhelmed, a notion Sample describes as "a bit patronising".