Description: The book is based on a series of lectures given by Sir John Polkinghorne at Princeton Theological in 2003. Topics include natural theology, the theology of nature, evolution, Big Bang theory, the relationship between science and faith, how we should approach Scripture, the problem of evil, eschatology, end-time resurrection, and other key theological topics. The book is profound, but written in fairly simple language - considering the subjects being discussed. Some familiarity with theological and scientific terms would be helpful; otherwise, you will need a good dictionary at hand. If you know a little about science and theology, these 180 pages read quickly.



For me, as a vegan and animal advocate, some parts (like page 152)are deeply disturbing. Here Sir John questions those who think God might want to preserve all the animals for eternity. Here I would like to quote the author:



"I believe that every human that has ever lived will again live beyond their deaths, but should I also believe this to be true of every dinosaur? Even more problematically, what about every bacterium that has ever lived?" (page 152)



I won't even comment on the fallacy of this comparison.



Polkinghorne goes on to say that he thinks that representatives of each species will be preserved, but ...



"On the other hand, I think it is unlikely that they will all be there. There is a human intuition ... that animals are indeed to be valued, but more in type than in token ... it is morally permissible, in circumstances of limited forage, to cull a herd of deer, preserving the group at the cost of the humane killing of some of its members. Such a policy could not be coutenanced in relation to a human population. I think it likely, therefore, that there will be horses in the world to come, but not every horse that has ever lived." An intriguing special case is presented by animals who are greatly loved pets. Have they acquired sufficient idiosyncratic significance to require this to be continued beyond death?"(page 152)





These are loaded comments. Polkinghorne may be a universalist, but his remarks are so guarded that it is difficult to say for certain. Polkinghorne may have this all backwards, however. I think he could be over-estimating the number of human earthlings who will be saved and under-estimating the number of non-human earthlings who will see the new creation. Christopher Southgate, in his book, The Groaning of Creation, asserts that there may be universal salvation for the animals. This actually makes better sense - if humans have a more profoud understanding of the Moral Law, but freely choose to violate it. On the other hand, Polkinghorne often speaks as if there is limited space for resurrected creatures to live in. How odd! Two points can be made here: 1) The physical laws may be more different in the new cosmos than Polkinghorne realizes, and 2) Even with no change in the basic physics, there is plenty of room in this universe for all the people and animals that ever lived. Sir John thinks only of the earth in this sense. Why couldn't buffalo graze on the moon?



I was also quite intrigued by his comment that hunting would be okay in situations of "limited forage." Well that sounds like conditional vegetarianism. One would think Polkinghorne would come right out and say so if he were an ethical vegetarian. Considering the overall attitude projected here, I would say he is not a member of Vegan Outreach. Again, his remarks are carefully worded as if he were a lawyer.



And, again, in this provocative paragraph, we come across the idea that companion animals are more deserving of respect or salvation than wild or agricultural animals . Let me assure all of you that a dog is not fundamentally different than its cousin, the pig, except, of course, that the pig is probably smarter. We love Spot like a family member, but we eat his more intelligent cousin, Mr. Pig, after torturing him in a factory farm. Please notice too Sir John's precise wording: "animals are indeed to be valued, but more in type than in token." In other words species are important, but not individual animals, which he calls "tokens" as opposed to individuals or persons.



Richard Swinburne makes similar mistakes in his own theodicy. It is time for theologians to accept that there really are no fundamental differences between homosapiens and other earthlings. The only aspect of imago dei that they lack is dominion. Until this is realized, theodicies will lack credibility, and prove to the world that religion is still blind in the 21st century.