Reviews for Religion and Politics in Saljuq Iran: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Inquiry

The average rating for Religion and Politics in Saljuq Iran: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Inquiry based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-03-13 00:00:00 Melanie Garrett I am a bit torn on how to rate this in terms of star ratings. If I look at it as an argument and a work of philosophy then I give it three stars but if I look at it as a history of the tensions between science and religion then I give it four. Since the latter is what is promised by the title that is what I am going with, but not without some reservations. As far as the science goes, there is definitely more interesting stuff when it comes to the philosophy of science. Barbour rejects what he calls "naive realism" in favor of "critical realism" and is influenced a lot by Thomas Kuhn. I do not agree with his points on many issues but I cannot deny it is well argued. I do think he ignores some of the criticisms by "postmodernists" but when he even brings radical feminist thought to the table, that is more than most philosophers of science ever do. The theology parts are not as strong. Barbour presents a God so weak that it often seems like he is merely trying to shoehorn him in. He does address many different views on the religious issues however, some I think are stronger than his own, so a reader can get an idea of what other theologians might argue, whether they are sympathetic to the arguments or not. There really is some fantastic history and framing of historical issues in this book. That is where it really shines. So I will definitely keep this book around as a reference for those reasons, even if its arguments are not as strong as I would like them to be in some places.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-03-27 00:00:00 Pierre Gr�goire I read this as part of a course at Asbury. The coverage of science here seems sound; I was out of my depth particularly in the biology section. Barbour is unapologetic in favoring process theology, which I am told is quite philosophically satisfying. I demur, and while this is a worthy book, I'm not sure it would be the first I would turn to in the science/religion conversation.