James Frederick Ivey, M.D. The Physics and Philosophy of the
Bible: How Science and the Thought of Great Thinkers of History Join
with Theology to Show that God Exists and That We Can Live Forever. WestBow, 2017. See here to purchase the book.
James Frederick Ivey is an M.D. He is also the father-in-law of Eowyn Ivey, who was a Pulitzer finalist for her novel, The Snow Child. She offered suggestions for Dr. Ivey’s book.
This book is somewhat of a mixture between apologetics and
testimonial. Ivey attempts to argue that Christianity has a truth that
non-Christian religions lack, and that science points to an intelligent
mind behind the cosmos. He can get pretty deep in his discussions, but
there is also an informality to the book, as Ivey talks about how
different thinkers—scientists, philosophers, theologians, and
novelists—have influenced his religious worldview. There is also an
anecdotal element, for Ivey discusses some of his family’s faith
journey. It was like hearing Ivey talk about his interests and insights
over a cup of coffee.
In terms of positives, Ivey is very well-read, and that shows in this
book. He discusses the anthropic principle and intelligent design, as
do a lot of apologetic works, but his scientific discussion is not
limited to that. Quantum theory looms large in this book, and Ivey
engages the speculation that the cosmos is a thought in the mind of God.
Ivey draws some from Rob Bell’s “Everything Is Spiritual” thoughts and
refers to the importance of light in the cosmos and possible theological
conclusions that one can draw from that.
In terms of aspects of the book that I did not like as much, I did
not care that much for his discussion of the various religions. There
was a humble tone to that discussion, as Ivey said what he liked and
disliked about them. In some cases, he could have tried harder to
approach the religions empathetically. He inquired about the basis of
the Buddhist noble path, as if morality can only be grounded in theism.
Yet, a number of Buddhists would say that their way of life is correct
because it recognizes the miserable human condition and tries to cure
human spiritual sickness. Why would we want to do that? Well, why would
anyone want to be miserable?
On one occasion, Ivey said: “Thus, if you wish to dispute my idea of
abstraction that can do something, you will have to go up against
Hawking.” That statement was an argument from authority. Also, Hawking
was an atheist. There were places in which Ivey offered a more nuanced
understanding of Hawking’s thought, which is what makes that one passage
rather surprising.
Some of Ivey’s arguments were “God-of-the-gaps” arguments: we cannot
account for certain things naturalistically, so we should at least be
open to saying that God did it. Is that an argument, or is it jumping to
conclusions with limited knowledge?
Some of his more theological discussions were a mixture of positive
and negative. Ivey is not afraid to think outside of the box, but he
occasionally throws in a thought without much support, as when he says
that God does not punish but we punish ourselves. More interaction with
the Bible may have enhanced the theological discussions.
This is still a good book. The scientific discussions were over my
head, in places, but Ivey was still fairly clear about what point he was
trying to make.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest.