Stephen M. Barr

I haven’t figured out whether I agree or not with Robert Miller on the prevalence of genuine relativism . He is certainly right that there are almost no consistent relativists out there. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to be an absolutely consistent relativist, as it almost . . . . Continue Reading »

Senator John Edwards has offered us a reflection that gives us a glimpse of his hidden theological depths: "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, . . . . Continue Reading »

Quantum theory is unsettling. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman admitted that it “appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone—both to the novice and to the experienced physicist.” Niels Bohr, one of its founders, told a young colleague, “If it does not boggle your mind, you understand . . . . Continue Reading »

While I agree with the general sentiment of Fr. Edward Oakes’ observations yesterday concerning the invidious or vituperative use of the word heresy , I feel that he is turning into a matter of sentiment what should be a matter of precise definition. If the word heresy is thought of merely as . . . . Continue Reading »

The Language of God by francis s. collins free press, 304 pages, $26 “Today we are learning the language in which God created life.” With these words, President Clinton announced one of the great feats of modern science, the mapping of the human genome. Standing next to him in the East Room of . . . . Continue Reading »

A small price that I have paid for the privilege of writing book reviews for First Things is that I have ended up reading four of Richard Dawkins’ books. That is more than anyone should have to read, for though Dawkins writes extremely well, his repertoire of ideas is quite limited. Indeed, . . . . Continue Reading »

The Creation: A Meeting of Science and Religion by Edward O. Wilson. W.W. Norton, 160 pages, $21.95. If there is a single word that sums up the life and work of Edward O. Wilson, it is naturalist. The dictionary defines a naturalist to be either “an expert in natural history; a person who . . . . Continue Reading »

I fear that Profs. George and Lee may have misunderstood my position . They seem to think that I have been arguing against any kind of continuity between the premortem body and the resurrected body. For instance, they say, Professor Barr’s argument seems to be this: (1) When a body is . . . . Continue Reading »

There is a template that many books on science or science history follow when they touch upon the relations of science and religion: Bold Scientist Persecuted by the Church for Thinking New Thoughts. The Galileo case does to a large extent fit the template, but few if any other cases do. Darwin was . . . . Continue Reading »

Mary Ruiz’s amusing post on Samuel Pepys and his “towsing” of “ladies not his wife” puts me in mind of that most intelligent and charming of English monarchs, Charles II, who was famous for his dalliances with the ladies. (G.K. Chesterton, in a ballad from his . . . . Continue Reading »