A lot to unpack here. First, I think it's very doubtful that the big bang could
have been "predicted" by Gen.1 in any real sense. Certainly the traditional (& probably
correct - cf. Westermann) rendering "In the beginning God created..." indicates a
beginning of time but hardly an expanding universe, &c.
Second, while many cosmologists have been uncomfortable with BB because of its
possible religious implications, I don't think that's so with Eddington. He was a
Quaker who attended meeting with some regularities & while he didn't write a lot on
science & religion, I know no reason to think him antagonistic to the idea of the
dependence of the world upon God. While the orthodoxy of such a view can certainly be
debated, one can believe in God as the creator of a world which has no temporal
beginning. I think we should put the best construction on his remark and regard
it as an expression of scientific & philosophical aesthetics, not
anti-religious bias. (There is a little book of Eddington's, _Science and the Unseen
World_ [I think] but I can't lay hands on it right now.)
Most importantly - I would repeat what I've said before about Romans 1: It is
not simply a straightforward recommendation of natural theology. Paul does indeed say
that there is "evidence" from creation for God - but that all people distort this
evidence and worship, instead of the true God, various idols. When he finishes with
this theme in Ch.3 he does not say "Now let's do natural theology correctly" but points
immediately to Christ.
The Fine Tuner or Intelligent Designer can be idols as much as any crude statue.
They will not be if we begin with the belief that the tuner, designer, &c is the God
revealed in the Exodus and the cross/resurrection of Christ
> 2) How can your idea that the Book of Nature is a sequel to the Book of
> Scripture work in science?
It's not supposed to work in science. Science is concerned with reading the
book of nature. When its results are placed in the context of revelation we're doing
theology, not natural science.
(BTW, one problem I have with the "2 books" idea is that it suggests that the
Bible, rather than God's historical actions which culminate in Christ, is God's primary
revelation. It isn't. Scripture is the authoritative witness to revelation.)
> 3) We do not know how many scientists have been softened or attracted to the
> Book of Scripture by reading the Book of Nature first. They may be closet
> Christians in the house of science. It seems to me you are prescribing a
> certain sequence of "readings" that need to be followed. I'm not sure that's
> always the way God brings people to salvation.
I agree. I don't want to prescribe the route anyone has to take in coming to
faith. Certainly many people have been opened to the possibility of faith by their
experience & understanding of the natural world & then have become believers in Christ.
But there's a great deal of danger in making that sequence a general method of
apologetics. Inter alia, the assumption, both within the church & outside, that
"believing in God" is the essence of Christianity, is far too prevalent.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/