• William Harvey Austin
Part of the Library of Philosophy and Religion book series


We have considered several arguments for the irrelevance of natural science to theology, and have found that none establishes the thesis that there are no significant ways in which the one bears on the other. It would be foolish to say that all possible, or even that all extant, arguments for this thesis have been treated. But the ones discussed seem to be fair representatives of the main types that have been put forward. The widespread belief that theologians should, or can safely, ignore the findings of the natural sciences thus appears to have quite shaky foundations.


Religious Doctrine Religious Thought Liberal Interpretation Scientific Belief Shaky Foundation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: The Free Press, 1967; first published, 1925), p. 189.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Langdon B. Gilkey, ‘The Concept of Providence in Contemporary Theology’, Journal of Religion, XLIII (1963), p. 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 7.
    See John T. Wilcox, `A Question from Physics for Certain Theists’, Journal of Religion, XLI (1961), pp. 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. For a reply see Lewis S. Ford, `Is Process Theism Compatible with Relativity Theory?’, Journal of Religion, XLVIII (1968), pp. 124–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© William Harvey Austin 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Harvey Austin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations