Now the Dowd book is something to discuss. I know a lot about the book and about Dowd. I think the concept of a marriage of science and religion is flawed. He writes from the perspective of scientific materialism and his work is more along the lines of "the conflation of science and religion." In a recent trip to Chapel Hill, he said that we know longer need faith because we have scientific fact. See this blog post by Michael:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/new-theists-knowers-not-believers_b_1586301.html . Where he writes:
A new breed of theist is emerging around the globe. We are religious naturalists: Reality is our God, evidence is our Scripture, integrity is our religion, and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission.
Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See
I imagine Harvey Cox's book is quite good. I've always appreciated his work.
Herman