> Question -- were these "science popularizers"
> of a generation ago Christians? Theists? Did they
> express science/religion complementatity in
> their writings?
Eddington was a Quaker, and 20th Century Quakers have not
generally been in the tradition of historic Christianity. If he
were, he probably would not have said in 1928 "that religion
first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the
year 1927". This was the year of the "final overthrow" of the
yoke of strict causality by Heisenberg, Bohr, Born and others.
Both Eddington and Jeans welcomed the new physics as deliverance
from the "prison" of a mechanistic universe. [My source for this
is E.N. Hiebert, "Modern physics and Christian faith", in "God
and Nature" edited by Lindberg and Numbers, Berkeley: Univ of
California Press, 1966, 424-447.]
I also looked up Colin Russell's "Cross-currents" (IVP, 1985).
This has several references to Eddington and Jeans.
On page 221: "Bohr himself considered that biological phenomena
could be validly considered from complementary standpoints:
mechanistic and organic. He also suggested that freewill and
determinism may be similarly understood, in which he was followed
by Eddington and others. Various writers have seen
complementarity within theology, as in the divine and human
natures of Christ, and in the age-old problem of freewill and
divine providence. Others have thought of science and religion
as complementary ways of looking at reality."
At this point, Russell cites Ian Barbour "Issues in science and
religion"(SCM, 1968) as giving "full references". It may be that
Barbour's book, which I do not have to hand, will answer your
question.
Also on page 221: "Bertrand Russell made the quip, not altogether
fairly, that 'Sir Arthur Eddington deduces religion from the fact
that atoms do not obey the laws of mathematics, Sir James Jeans
deduces it from the fact that they do'. Eddington was
understandably riled, and expressed his total opposition to 'any
proposal to base religion on scientific discovery'".
This incident reveals both men as advocates for 'religion', and
may go some way to answering the first part of your question.
Apparently, both men were effective proponents of the universal
heat-death prediction of the second law of thermodynamics, and
both found metaphysical implications in their science. Eddington
spoke of a 'universal Mind or Logos' and Jeans of 'the Great
Architect of the Universe'. I find many similarities between
them and various physicists today (eg Davies) who draw religious
conclusions from their scientific work.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***