Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) was a prominent Quaker astrophysicist at Cambridge University who made an extraordinary impact on inter-war physics, helping to communicate relativity, cosmology and quantum physics to a popular audience. He was also a prolific science communicator whose philosophical reflections on the meaning of the new physics captivated global audiences. His quest for a theory of everything, though unsuccessful, came from his conviction that the nature of ultimate reality was spiritual, and is underappreciated for its historical impact. Much (...) can be learned from his legacy of trying to harmonize science and faith to a larger audience searching for meaning. Eddington’s ambitious attempt at a Christian theory of everything deserves further examination and can still teach us much about our approach to science and religion. (shrink)

Since the emergence of New Atheism under figures such as Richard Dawkins, there has been a revolution in popular Christian interest in science and religion. However, many approaches to science and religion among Christian laypeople follow an evidentialist model. In sharp contrast, Sir Arthur Eddington’s different voice, as a prominent scientist and devout Quaker, remains unfamiliar to the majority in these discussions. Heralded by some commentators as ahead of his time, his unusual yet bold ideas, which at times were misunderstood, (...) deserve renewed consideration. His influence throughout the twentieth century ran deeper than he has been given credit for. It is time to reassess his value to science and religion as a discipline and to acknowledge that his contributions have a great deal of merit for the ongoing dialogue. In this article, we question whether evidentialist approaches are as valuable as Eddington’s contributions. We examine his works and life to see what can be learned from his perspective on the science-religion question. In doing so, we are also asking whether his attitude to science and religion would be more fruitful than the alternatives. (shrink)

Senter makes a convincing case against Behemoth being a dinosaur in Job 40. He also deals with arguments for Leviathan and where elsewhere theologians have sought to categorise dinosaurs in scripture. I argue that, from the perspective of philosophy of science, we cannot conceive of dinosaurs in scripture seriously and it is time to lay the debate to rest for reasons other than translation.

Van Sloten mixes celebrating creation with contributions from scientists re flecting on God’s work in their vocations. They invite the scientist to proactively become a seeker of God in the practical.