Ted,
You are trying to ruffle Arthur's feathers! I feel you have overstated
matters, though Arthur is most definitely a LIBERAL Anglican, though much
less so than Spong.
I have known AP for 20 years and oddly in the late 50s when he was starting
his sci and religion work he sought advice from my uncle G Yarnold a vicar
cum physicist. A regards me as too conservative and biblicist and I find his
theology lacks redemption.
I am not sure he accepts the warfare of Sci and religion but he does let sci
be the arbiter hence his rejection of miracle. When he spoke to our diocese
in Balckburn in the cathedral( - standing in front of the nave altar with a
lovely red frontal - and a blue peacock on it. I dont think it was the
Dean's sense of humour though he is the splitting image of Derek Nimmo!)
some pointed out that his theology was very well argued but lacked fire.
I agree with Ted that British christians simply do not understand
Creationism and until they do they will not counteract it. Also offer
Arthur's theology to an evangelical and they will prefer Johnson and even
possibly Ham.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:37 PM
Subject: peacocke(s) and ICR
> Not exactly birds of a feather, clearly enough! I don't know Arthur's
wife,
> but I've spoken with Arthur a few times and wish to add a background
comment
> on creationism, as he might view it.
>
> Arthur regards me, many ASAers, and some significant modern writers on
> sci/faith (whom I will not name publicly) as fundamentalists. I am
> confident about his view of me and of some others, because we've discussed
> this; I'm inferring his view of ASAers generally. My intepretation of
> Arthur (please read that again before continuing, nothing the "i" word) is
> as follows. Having rejected utterly the type of evangelical faith of his
> youth as "unscientific," Arthur has implicitly accepted the "warfare" view
> of religion and science, according to which science is the final arbiter
of
> truth on matters of faith--ie, science determines the character as well as
> the content of our belief on matters involving nature, which he continues
to
> call the "creation" though not in terms that I find adequate. Theology
> ought to be purged of most traditional notions. This might best be done
by
> redefining traditional terms, yet again, in favor of science--hence his
> frequent use of scare quotes when referencing things such as "resurrection
> of the body." I could go on.
>
> The main point of my impression is, that Arthur seems simply unable to
> acknowledge a genuine intellectual contribution from anyone somewhat to
his
> right, theologically, because anyone who does not accept the fundamental
> premise of the warfare thesis is just not modern enough to have a
> contribution worth considering--a scientist's attitude if there ever was
> one, nothing older than last month's data is any good. Fill in the
name(s)
> of some of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, let alone
> those of the fifth or the sixteenth centuries (my knowledge of the latter
> group, though I am hardly a theologian, seems wider and deeper than his,
> judging from informal conversations), and the situation becomes almost
> ludicrous, if it weren't so deadly serious.
>
> Thus, I really do doubt that Arthur is discriminating enough to separate
> the wheat from the chaff, on an issue like creationism. (Some might say
> that Phillip Johnson suffers from a similar disorder.) Like many British
> intellectuals, he'd like to think that creationism is a purely American
> phenomenon, and then ask what we would expect from evangelicals anyway.
> People who believe in the literal resurrection, or the actual temporality
of
> the universe, or the virgin birth, qualify as fundamentalists in his book;
> they haven't made the necessary theological adjustments to count as having
> something worth saying. Perhaps Polkinghorne can actually persuade Arthur
> to the contrary, but I think this remains to be seen.
>
> To an historian such as myself, this is more than just a little
> frustrating--I've spent my professional life mining the Christian
tradition
> for insights helpful to the contemporary conversation--so I apologize if
my
> impression seems unfair. But I do think it accurate.
>
> Ted Davis
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 17:04:15 EST