From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 12:00:08 EDT
I thank Howard for the frank and open discussion of his changing theological
position, the outline of which he shared privately with me a couple of years
ago. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to comment in any way on
his own religious story, insofar as it is his own religious story.
I do think it appropriate, however, for me to comment on his final words:
But it is not science, by itself, that moves me away
from traditional supernaturalism toward naturalistic theism. It is the way
that naturalistic theism rings true to the whole of my life experience
that
attracts me to it.
I am not asking for anyone on this list to agree with my choice. The
limited
point is that my choice is one that goes far beyond science. To tie in
with
my opening question, SCIENCE does not deserve either the credit or blame
for
my choice.
********
Once again, I commend Howard for doing what he has always done:
coourageously and honestly stating what he believes, and why he believes it.
My comment is, speaking as an historian of religion and science, that it is
almost always a larger human story, not directly involving science, that
provides the reasons why individual scientists change their religious
beliefs--and I mean "change" to include (1) conversion to religion, (2) loss
of religious faith, or (3) redefinition of one's religious understanding
without necessarily loss of faith. The historical stereotype, according to
which science leads people to lose faith, does hold in some cases. But it
usually doesn't. Science is typically a rather minor factor. Darwin, e.g.,
probably lost his theism following the deaths of his father and favorite
daughter, not following his visit to the Galapagos or his reading of Thomas
Malthus.
ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 21 2003 - 12:01:49 EDT