Episode 77. Let's now examine the second well-known science and religion model, that of Ian Barbour. Ian Barbour is often considered to be the dean of science religion dialogue. In fact, he began his work on this topic in the 1960s. His most important book is the classic Religion in an Age of Science, published in 1990. Barbour holds a PhD in physics and also has a master of divinity. He is a Protestant Christian. Barbour's model of Science & Religion features for relationships between science and religion. Again, I want to emphasize that the model includes as many relationships as possible, including those we do not accept. I also want to point out that Barbour's fourth categories have had a huge impact on science religion dialogue. Because we often see them reappear in some form. Barbour's four relationships, include number one, conflict. Number two, independence. Number three, dialogue and number four, integration. Regarding Barbour's position on science and religion. And to recall a position is a personal and specific view on the relationship between science and religion. Barbour rejects conflict, starts with independence and then he integrates dialogue and aspects of integration. Barbour described his position in Quote 21. He writes, I will argue that none of the options considered above. He's referring here to conflict and independence, is adequate to the task. I will suggest reasons for supporting dialogue and with some qualifications, certain versions of integration. In light to this passage, I will again suggest the following tip. As you proceed through Barbour's model, select & combine the different relationships to develop your own personal position. In his famous book, Religion in Age of Science, Ian Barbour begins by dealing directly with the challenge to religion. Simply stated it is the success of science. Quote 22 is the opening sentence of his book. The first major challenge to religion in an age of science is the success of the methods of science. Barbour's observation aligns with John Pokehorn's psychological effect argument. Whereby the success of science blinds us from seeing other approaches to truth such as religion. Barbour gets even more specific. He contends that the problem with science and religion is epistemological. Science appears to be the only way to find capital T truth. In Quote 23 he writes, science seems to provide the only reliable path to knowledge. Many people view science as objective, universal, rational, and based on solid evidence. Religion by contrast seems to be subjective, parochial, emotional and based on traditions or authorities that disagree with each other. As we have seen previously, this is the common perception of the relationship between science and religion. Many people view science to be objective, universal, rational and based on solid evidence. In contrast to science, religion is subjective, parochial, emotional and based on disagreeing traditions. But as we've noted before, this common understanding of science and religion is trapped in simple dichotomies and conflations. And entrenched in black and white and either or thinking. End of episode.