Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge Studies in the History of Science)

I think John Hedley Brooke brings out some very interesting material in this book. Various theses, interpretations and topics are analysed. The text serves as a primer for students of history of science and theology...

Without a doubt, John Brooke is very knowledgeable on the history of science and religion. His knowledge is evident in this book "Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives." Unfortunately, however, his writing style does not do justice to his understanding. Here are some of the major writing style concerns that I have.

First, he repeatedly quotes authors without providing references in the form of end notes. Take, for example, the second paragraph on page 119. It reads, "Aristotle had this to say in the context of explaining planetary motion, 'We are inclined to think of the stars as mere bodies or units...we ought to think of them as partaking of life and initiative.'" No end note!? This happens throughout the book and it is really annoying. He continually relies on quotes to support his arguments but you can't find the source of the quote. Or he often says, "so and so said..." but does not surround the supposed statement with quotation marks. This gives the book an unscholarly feel. So often I found myself thinking, "Well, should I trust Brooke, that he is correctly representing the ideas and comments of others?" This is a risk I am not willing to take.

Second, his writing style does a lot of what I call "name dropping." For example, he will be writing about Galileo, and then suddenly, in the same paragraph, slip in the name of some person and then say a thing or two about that person without providing a context or background about who that person is or why he or she is important. A little bit of this is ok, but there is too much of it and it gets annoying after a while, not to mention making it hard to follow the discussion. He takes too much for granted in thinking that the reader knows these obscure people.

Third, he often refers to Bacon, but which one!? Are you talking about Roger or Francis? This gets real annoying after a while. Again, he is taking too much for granted in thinking that the reader knows who he is talking about.

Fourth, the writing style in this book is, I hate to say, convoluted and oftentimes exhausting to read. Too often the reader has to stop, go back, and slowly read over again (and yes, again) to ensure full understanding. This makes reading the book laborious. Here is an example from page 109, first full paragraph. "The scientific texts produced by Jesuit scholars were sometimes short on theory [how so?]. This may reflect the belief [whose belief?] that catalogs of data [what kind of `catalogs of data'?] were more appropriate for teaching purposes or that there were pressures to shy away [what is meant by `shy away', and why?] from controversial ideas [such as...?]. Even those who saw the need for theoretical models [what is meant by `theoretical models'?] sometimes exulted [you mean, `delighted in'] in a pluralism [theoretical pluralism?] that had the effect of giving priority to none"[which is to say that....?]. This example contains many ideas, but they are just mashed together. All the while the reader is trying to keep pace as he or she goes along. Again, he takes for granted that the reader understands as he does.

Fifth, there are too many negatives. Try the following sentence found on page 19: "To say that religious belief could function as a presupposition of science need not [one] entail the strong claim that, without [two] a prior theology, science would never [three] have taken off." Reading this sort of verbiage page after page gets tedious.

On the positive side, he emphasizes the importance of interpreting past events within the context of which those events occurred. In all fairness there are a lot of gems in this book, if you don't mind hunting for them. But at some 347 pages long, I dare say that most people won't press forward to the end of the book looking for the gems.

In conclusion, Brooke is very knowledgeable, but unfortunately does not convey his ideas in a clear and concise manner in this book. It does not rise to the level of other books on science and religion, such as "Science and Religion" (by Ferngren) and "Religion and Science" (by Barbour). I can highly recommend these two books.

Brooke challenges many comfortable myths about the history of science and religion in the West. Fans of Andrew White's "warfare" metaphor---that science and theology have always been in conflict with each other---will find that this simplistic metaphor fails to capture the complexity of actual historical data. On the flip side, Christian apologists who maintain that Christianity deserves the lion's share of the credit for the rise of natural science in the West will also find that reality is much more complicated than this neat story would have it. The book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the relationship between these two powerful forces that shape so much of Western culture today.