George posted, in part:
" Independent natural theology (i.e., that which is developed without
reference to revelation) is 1) biblically marginal, and 2) dangerous....
."
That seems pretty obvious. Do you understand Whitehead/Griffin to have
done this? From my studying of them so far I think Whitehead may be so
accused, but not griffin. But I may be wrong.
George continues: "Even if some theoretical validity is granted to
independent natural theology as a preparation for the gospel, it is a
very dangerous enterprise."
From my own conversion experiences, and from reading C.S. Lewis, it seems
that something like "independent natural theology" was involved for both
of us. Perhaps I'm misreading Lewis; I think I am not misreading my own
experiences. Maybe this WAS "dangerous," I don't know.
Much later, George writes: " We have to accept God as creator on the
basis of revelation - we don't get it from science."
That's true, of course. But the meaning of the very word "God" is
problematic here. Somewhere I found this quotation:
--------------------
"God" is not God's name.
It is OUR name for the mystery
that looms within, and without,
and beyond the limits of our vision.
----------------------
I think it is not irrational to "get from science" the idea of a god that
is simply an ultimate First Cause. I agree that one needs revelation to
understand that He is personal though. I suspect that is what you meant.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 22 2001 - 11:42:44 EDT