Re: Philip Johnson's Agenda
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:20:11 -0500
Jack Haas wrote:
> I wish that this thread had been called 'Does Theology Count in
> Science/Christianity Discussion? ..............................
> One crucial point ought to be one's attitude toward scripture and the
> influence of science narrowly (philosophically) on our understanding.
> I think that our theology (or lack thereof) can influence our views on
> the various design arguments, God's action in nature, and much more,
> especially are we come to the worldview level
>
> I would suggest that we try to pool our collective wisdom on the
> subject. It has not been seriously addressed in PSCF in recent
> memory. If enough of us are willing to participate in the discussion,
> I would post a summary on the ASA web page under the title Does
> Theology Count? This would be very helpful with students.
Briefly - theology matters when we're talking about God. That's really a
matter of definition. Let me break that down a bit in light of the current thread.
1) One general problem that many of us have with the ID movement is that
its proponents want to avoid theological discussion but are quite happy to have their
arguments used for theological ends, & in fact some of their motivations seem to be
theological - showing that materialistic philosophy is inadequate, having a God who
"makes a difference" &c. So they want to make a theological case without having their
theology analyzed.
2) If we are focussing on whether or not certain approaches can provide
_ultimate_ explanations for life, consciousness &c then we are in the realm of
"religion" in a broad sense - i.e., Tillich's "ultimate concern." Thus we are speaking
theologically, no matter how much we may claim no thological presuppositions.
3) Speaking now just for myself - I think there is a very fundamental problem
with the idea that we may begin our theological analysis with some natural theology
which can be known & agreed on by everyone independently of revelation, & on that basis
say something about creation & other matters, before we get to any specifically
Christian contributions. While I don't completely agree with Barth in this area, I
think he was profoundly right that such attempts are in the long run disastrous for
Christianity. They often end up with a "Christianity" which in fact is philosophical
theism in which specifically Christian concepts - & especially Incarnation, cross, &
resurrection - are able to maintain only a precarious existence.
4) This does _not_ mean that we have to speak theologically in order to do
science. Scientific observations do not provide a natural theology precisely because
they can be explained without reference to God. & that should be seen as a consequence
of the hidden character of divine action to which Is.45:15 & Phil.2:5-11 (among other
passages) point.
Theologia naturalis delenda est!
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/