t f p g+ YouTube icon

Ian G. Barbour, 1923 – 2013

Bookmark and Share

January 8, 2014 Tags: Education, Lives of Faith, Science as Christian Calling
Ian G. Barbour, 1923 – 2013
Photo courtesy of Carleton College

Today's entry was written by Jim Stump. You can read more about what we believe here.

Ian Barbour died on Christmas Eve at the age of 90. He is credited by many to be the father of the contemporary academic discipline of science and religion. His 1966 book, Issues in Science and Religion, was the starting point for a generation who began to reflect more seriously on the relationship between the two.

Ian Graeme Barbour was born in 1923 to missionary teachers in China, where his family was acquainted with a forerunner of science and religion studies, Teilhard de Chardin. Barbour came to the States to take degrees in physics from Swarthmore and Duke, and then a PhD in cosmic-ray physics from the University of Chicago, where he studied with Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller. On the theological side of his education, he earned a divinity degree from Yale Divinity School, and then spent a year at Harvard studying process theology with Gordon Kaufman. In 1955 an opportunity opened for Barbour to teach both physics and religious studies at Carleton College in Minnesota, where he spent the rest of his scholarly career until retirement in 1986.

Besides Issues, Barbour’s other significant books in science and religion are Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion (1974), Religion in an Age of Science (1990, revised in 1997 as Religion and Science: Some Historical and Contemporary Issues), When Science Meets Religion (2000), and Nature, Human Nature, and God (2002). In recognition of his contribution to science and religion, Barbour gave the Gifford Lectures in Aberdeen in 1989-90 and was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1999.

The concept for which Barbour is most well-known is his four-fold typology for ways of relating science and religion. Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration are four models for understanding how the two different disciplines might be related to each other. Many people see them in Conflict, such that science or religion can be victorious in their explanations, but not both. Others hold to Independence, according to which each has its own separate sphere of inquiry and so they do not conflict with each other. But Barbour preferred Dialogue and Integration, believing that we must move beyond Conflict but also that human experience does not lend itself to Independence. He thought that the potential for dialogue could be found in comparing the methodologies of science and religion, as well as at the boundary questions which science might raise but cannot answer (like the reason for the orderliness and intelligibility of the universe). And the Integration model focusses on the relationships between theological doctrines and particular scientific theories. Barbour’s favorite example of Integration was the development of a theology of nature (as opposed to natural theology).

Barbour was deeply influenced by Quaker faith and possessed a gentle demeanor. His wife of 64 years, Deane Kern, preceded him in death in 2011, and he is survived by four children, three grandchildren, and a great-grandson. Barbour’s professional legacy lives on at Berkeley’s Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, where he donated a significant portion of his Templeton Prize money to endow the Ian G. Barbour Chair for Theology and Science. Watch a video of Barbour in 2012 reflecting on his work and the field of science and religion.

For further reading


Jim Stump is Senior Editor at BioLogos. As such he oversees the development of new content and curates existing content for the website and print materials. Jim has a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and was formerly a philosophy professor and academic administrator. He has authored Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues (Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming) and co-authored (with Chad Meister) Christian Thought: A Historical Introduction (Routledge, 2010). He has co-edited (with Alan Padgett) The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012) and (with Kathryn Applegate) How I Changed My Mind About Evolution (InterVarsity, forthcoming).

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
Roger A. Sawtelle - #84079

January 8th 2014

Ian Barbour tried to save traditional theology by using process philosophy.  However modern theology is no longer compatiable with traditional philosophy.

But it was a good try and we can learn from mistakes. Rest in peace, Dr. Barbour. 

Ted Davis - #84145

January 13th 2014

I knew Ian Barbour, though not all that well. The NY Times just published a nice obituary: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/ian-barbour-academic-who-resisted-conflicts-of-faith-and-science-dies-at-90.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140113&_r=0

He was a gentle man and a gentleman, one of the truly great scholars of his generation. Without his pioneering work, quite frankly, I would not have become an historian of Christianity and science, and (probably) there would be no BioLogos either. His views about God and nature were rather different from mine (and from those of BioLogos), in that he was committed to process theism; but, he knew the issues as well as anyone on the planet and he always communicated the complexity of the great questions with clarity, generosity, and humility.

A giant tree has fallen in the forest.

Page 1 of 1   1