Re: [asa] God as Cause

At 09:48 AM 1/11/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:

>"...I don't say that the above is my position,
>but I would say that it seems to answer the
>"regularity" argument in favor of MN, or at
>least to render that argument not the slam-dunk it's often represented to be.

@ You may find these reviewer comments on
Alister McGrath's books to be of interest:

http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Theology-Alister-E-McGrath/dp/0802839258

Dr. McGrath has finally constructed the stake
that needs to be driven into the heart of the
vampire of 'Enlightenment' thinking. This
profound and thoroughly well thought out work
clearly outlines the problems faced by those who
wish to see the world, not as it is, but as they
wish it to be. There is a true Nature and
correspondingly a true Nature's God. Both may be
known by honest intellectual and spiritually
discerning research. And both are disturbingly
real or confortingly so, depending on your outlook. ~ A reviewer 3/23/2003

Alister McGrath is a moderately conservative
Anglican theologian who has written a large
number of works on Christian theology. He is also
trained in the physical sciences as well .. A
SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY: NATURE is the first volume
of a three-volume work which relates theology to
the natural sciences. It is explicitly designed
to follow the insights of the neo-Barthian theologian, Thomas Torrance.

...It is fascinating to read how Plato,
Aristotle, the Romantics and the post-Modernists
define nature. The same is true with the doctrine
of creation, in which we learn that the doctrine
of creation out of nothing isn't a part of the
Jewish heritage as is often suggested.

McGrath also makes a number of interesting
observations. For example, there is an
interesting discussion what is meant by the term
"nature." Many things that we consider "natural,"
such as nature parks, are a result of
considerable human control. After all, many would
have been destroyed long ago by fire if they were
permitted run their "natural" course. Nature must
in some sense then be a "mediated" and "socially
constructed" concept. For this reason, a
Christian cannot accept it as a neutral starting
point for understanding the sciences. ... ~ A reviewer

McGrath has certainly distinguished himself as
one of the more erudite theologians around.
Characteristic of his previous writings is
thorough acquaintance with the history of the
theology at hand before engagement. This
certainly typifies this work as well, a
prologemena to a forthcoming work on scientific theology.
In this first of three volumes constituting this
intro material, McGrath tackles the tough issue
of "nature." Often talked about, but in very
nebulous modes. Mother Nature, laws of nature, et
al. Besides defining and debunking this
definitional obstacle, McGrath also tackles the
intellectual obstacles of Barthian response to
natural theology as well as liberal elements as
well. His goal is establish a credible,
apologetical response in dialogue with the
natural sciences outside Christianity regarding
the order of the created world as well as the
regularity of such. One quickly surmises that the
author is easily at home on this turf of science
and philosophy, as well as Reformed theology. Not
sure I will continue the other two volumes.
Likely wait for his promised work on scientific
theology. Nice read, somewhat short of his own
sustained ideas. More a sweep of the historical
past to present, with his own reaction to such as
he goes. Always an engaging author. ~ A reviewer

This is the book I have been waiting to read ever
since I got interested in science-and-religion
issues: a detailed, comprehensive, erudite
discussion of the science-religion dialogue which
does not water down orthodox Christian belief.
Finally, evangelicals have their 'Bible' in
dealing with modern science. There are too many
important issues which McGrath tackles to even
begin to do it justice (the best thing to do is
just read the book!), but among the highlights are:

  1) a critique of transitory 'fads' in theology
in an attempt to make theological language
scientifically respectable, but which do not, in
the end, do justice either to science or to
orthodox Christian belief, such as Ian Barbour's process theology,

2)the promise of Christian theology, in dialogue
with the sciences, to overcome the 'two-cultures'
dichotomy between science and humanities in
contemporary thinking and present an integrated,
intellectually and spiritually satisfying account of our human experience,

3)a demonstration of the social construction of
the concept of 'nature', making the valid point
that it is not a neutral, uninterpreted standing point for dialogue,

4) a brief but effective preliminary (carried on
in Volume 2, which I have yet to read) critique
of scientific naturalism, in part based on the
analysis of the concept of nature,

5)the implications of the doctrine of Creation
for science-religion dialogue, including an
account of the unreasonable effectiveness of
mathematics, human rationality, beauty in
scientific theories, etc. validating C.S. Lewis'
statement that "I believe in Christianity as I
believe that the sun has risen; not only because
I see it, but by it I see everything else" and finally

6)a very helpful reconceptualization of natural
theology, viewed not as an attempt to prove the
existence of God starting from a non-religious
standpoint (probably impossible) but as 'faith
seeking understanding' already within a theological framework.

Throughout McGrath's scholarship is thorough and
exhaustive, lending real weight to his arguments.
He takes history, sociology, theology, science,
philosophy, etc. into account at each stage of
his presentation. He is another fine example of
how to engage with the best secular scholarship
from a Christian viewpoint, without watering down
one's convictions, along with Jeffrey Burton
Russell, Nancey Murphy, etc. This book should be
read by all Christians who are serious both about
engaging with science and maintaining the
integrity of their faith. The likes of Barbour
and Peacocke, although they have insights which
definitely deserve consideration, are essentially
compromisers. McGrath shows how modern science
and thought in general do NOT necessitate a
radical revisioning of Christian belief.
Definitely required reading in science-and-religion. ~ A reviewer

THEORY is the third and final volume of Alister
McGrath's A SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY, a work of over
400,000 words. This series seeks to study the
methodology of the natural sciences and attempt
to correlate and apply them to the study of theology.

Prof. McGrath is clear that it isn't a work of
systematic theology, but rather a methodological
prolegomena to a soon to be published systematic
theology. (For some reason, the book jacket for
all three volumes describes it as a "systematic theology" anyway.)

As I've mentioned in my previous reviews, these
books contain numerous interesting background
studies that would be of help to anyone
interested in the relationship between religion
and science. On the other hand, these books come
across as something like a collection of
encyclopedia articles interspersed with a few
observations by Prof. McGrath setting forth his
own positions in a somewhat cursory manner.

Reviewing the final chapter, entitled "The Place
of Metaphysics in a Scientific Theology", shows
what is wrong with this work. McGrath discusses
Ayer, Mach, Carnap, John Milton, Ritschl,
Schleiermacher, Iris Murdoch, Ayn Rand (that's
not a misprint), protocol sentences, etc. All of
it is highly informative. I didn't know that
Milton wrote an anti-metaphysical treatise on
theology that wasn't rediscovered until 1823.

Yet the points that McGrath makes are relatively
few and general: we cannot escape metaphysics,
even those who advocate a "functional
Christology" are implicitly making metaphysical claims, and the like.

The entire series gives indications of being
hastily written. Besides being repetitive, it
appears that Prof. McGrath has read and written
more on these issues than actually thinking about
them. For example, on page 272, he states that E.
O. Wilson's book CONSCILIENCE is "important" and
discusses it in some detail. Yet in volume two,
he said that the book was "disappointing." On the
next page he tells us that B.B. Warfield was
Charles Hodge's "colleague" at Princeton. In
fact, Warfield didn't start teaching at Princeton
until after Hodge died. ~ A reviewer

Book Description
"Theory" is the third and final volume in a truly
groundbreaking work by one of the world's
best-known theologians. As a whole, Alister
McGrath's "Scientific Theology" is the most
extended and systematic exploration of the
relation between theology and science ever
undertaken. Now complete, it will surely become a
standard entry into modern Christian thought.

In Volume 3 McGrath deals with the question of
how reality is represented in Christian theology
and the natural sciences. Building on the
insights of thinkers like Martin Heidegger and
Jürgen Habermas, McGrath argues that theory is to
be conceived in terms of the "communal beholding
of reality." Thus understood, theory is primarily
a response to experienced reality, which, for the
Christian community, demands theological
expression. In the course of unpacking the
implications of this perspective, McGrath
addresses such subjects as the explanatory
dimensions of theology, the place of metaphysics
in Christian theology, and the nature of revelation itself.
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Theology-Theory/dp/0802839274/ref=pd_sim_b_2/104-1882984-9484703

A Review of
A Scientific
Theology
http://www.amazon.ca/Scientific-Theology-Nature-Alister-Mcgrath/dp/0802839258
vol. 1, Nature by Alister McGrath McGrath: Nature
http://www.geocities.com/developingtheology/ScThRevNature.html

Here we take a look at the first volume in a
three volume work on "Scientific Theology" by a
leading evangelical theologian Alister
McGrath. This first volume is of special
interest because it starts out by laying the
groundwork for this "Scientific Theology" by
exploring the relationship between Science and
Theology. McGrath lays out his understanding of
how these two disciplines are to be related to
one another, asserting the paradigm of ancilla
theologiae is the best way to understand the
relationship of science to theology. McGrath
then moves on to the first major section of his
Scientific Theology, with a discussion of the
concept of "nature" and what this means for the current dialogue.

  [ A first characteristic of philosophy if it is
to serve humankind also by helping with the
religious understanding of human dignity and
destiny, is that it must be authentically
philosophical. It cannot be a slave to theology,
religion or anything else. Classically, it has
been honored to bear the term "ancilla
theologiae". The term, of course, goes back to
the words of Mary upon hearing the annunciation
that she was to be the mother of Jesus. "Behold
the handmaid of the Lord (Ecce ancilla domini),
be it done unto me according to your word" (Lk 1,
38).
..http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-20/chapter_vii.htm
] [ancilla theologiae Philosophy the handmaid (ancilla) of theology ]

Alister McGrath is one of the leading evangelical
theologians today. He is a professor of theology
at Oxford University, where he also received his
education. He has published numerous books,
including an Introduction to Christian Theology
that is widely used as an introductory text book,
and a number of more scholarly works, ranging in
topic from the concept of justification in the
history of theology to studies of Luther's
Theology of the Cross. He has also published a
textbook on science and theology.

Yet, it is not only his theological credentials
which legitimate his work on "Scientific
Theology." He also received a Ph.D. in
molecular biology from Oxford, and has conducted
research in that area. Thus, in McGrath, we find
an author emminently trained in both the fields
of science and of theology. With this in mind,
we shall now turn to his understanding of how to relate the two disciplines.

      McGrath begins with a chapter on the
"Legitimacy of a Scientific Theology." McGrath
lays out his agenda this way, "A scientific
theology will treat the working assumptions and
methods of the natural sciences as offering a
supportive and illuminative role for the
Christian theological enterprise, both assisting
theological reflection andidentifiying and
allowing exploitation of apologetic possibilities
and strategies" (p. 7). In this discussion, he
beings by laying out his assertion that science
should act as ancilla theologiae. By this, he
means that we are to acknolwedge the engagement
between the disciplines, and allow science to
play a supportive role to theology, as it acts as
a dialogue partner. He first looks at the
history of the concept of ancilla theologiae,
noting that various philosophies (natural or
otherwise) have acted in this capacit throughout
the history of Christianity. This started with
the Hellenistic world of the first centuries, and
especially Platonism (seen in the writings of
Augustine especially). In the Middle Ages,
Aristotelianism took the place of Platonism, as
an important resource for theology. McGrath
notes that this history shows the possibility of
having an ancilla theologiae, but it also
demonstrates the danger as well as the promise.

It has been possible for each of these different
dialogue partners to take on too much authority
with regard to theology. Thus, McGrath emphasizes
that the discipline which plays this ancillary
role must act in a ministerial, and not
magisterial capacity in relation to theology. It
may be a fruitful source of ideas with helpful
convergences, and ask important questions, but at
the same time, the dialogue partner must not be
placed in authority over theology. He illustrates
this by asserting, "The natural sciences neither
prove nor disprove Christianity; thay are,
however, a most profitable dialogue partner" (8).

      A second important section of the
prolegomena of his scientific theology is
McGrath's assertion that not only is dialogue
possible in the way he as asserted, but this
dialogue is an "ontological imperitive." He
asserts very simply, "A positive working
relationship between Christian theology and the
natural sciences is demanded by the Christian
understanding of the nature of reality itself -
an understanding which is grounded in the
doctrine of creation" (21). For McGrath,
dialogue between science and theology is not just
part of an intellectual fad, but is instead
fundamental to the way Christians understand the
world. Because the world is God's creation, we
are required to engage it. Science must not be
considered outside the scope of theology!

      Important to understanding McGrath's
approach is to look at his understanding of the
two disciplines of science and theology. He
first looks at theology, noting the constant
presence of new trends, and asserts that one must
be constantly in dialogue with historical
theology, constantly conversing with voices from
the past. This means remaining within the "great
theological tradition" but always listening with
a critical ear and an eye to scripture. His
understanding of science is also important, for
he asserts, "Science is to be seen as an 'unended
quest', whose findings may be up to date but are never final" (47).

  Thus, it is primarily methodological questions
which will occupy McGrath in his scientific theology.

      In the body of the second main part of his
scientific theology, his discussion of "nature,"
McGrath looks first at the history of the idea
"nature," and shows how it has varied throughout
historical thought, from Plato and Aristotle to
the mechanistic view of nature. He concludes, "A
complex set of social mediations lies between the
observer and 'nature'. Nature is not, and cannot
be a 'thing-in-itself'..." (110).

"Nature" itself is a free human construction, as
opposed to a readily available source of
objective reality. It is an interpreted concept,
and must be understood as such, since it is
partly shaped by "socially mediated
factors." This conclusion leads McGrath to
assert, "[Nature] is therefore a category which
offers little promise as a basis - or even a
dialogue partner - for a scientific theology"
(133). In the place of "nature" as a category,
McGrath places "creation" as the category which
provides this dialogue partner, and it is to his
understanding of creation that we now turn.

      McGrath gives careful and comprehensive
attention to the doctrine of creation. He looks
at the biblical concepts which feed the doctrine,
as well as the development of the doctrine of
creation ex nihilo. He also gives careful
discussion to a number of classical formulations
of the doctrine, including Aquinas, Calvin and
Barth, and looks at the relationship of deism to
an understanding of creation, rounding out a good
historical discussion of this doctrine.

    McGrath's biblical and historical study of
the doctrine of creation then leads into a
discussion of what he sees to be the implications
of this doctrine. The first major implication
which he sees is that a Christian understanding
of creation "leads directly to the conclusion
that there is a correspondence - the degree of
which requires clarification - between the works
of God and the being of God" (193).

This point also leads to the related point that
there is a congruence between our minds and the
universe which allows scientific inquiry to be
possible, and further that there is a possibility
of theological reflection that is based on the
fact that humans are created in the imago
dei. Thus, by virtue of this created imago, the
human mind is able and adequate to undertake theological reflection on God.

  Among his other reflections on the implications
of the doctrine of creation comes the
understanding that beauty does belong to the
created world, by virtue of its being a
creation. This, among his other assertions,
leads him to conclude, "A strong doctrine of
creation (such as that associated with
Christianity) leads to the expectation of a
fundmental convergence of truth and beauty in the
investigation and explanation of the world,
precisely on account of the grounding of that
world in the nature of God" (240).

      The final area which McGrath treats in his
discussion of "nature" in this volume is natural
theology. After taking a (characteristically)
historical look at natural theology and its
development, he returns to an earlier theme, and
asserts that natural theology is fundamentally
problematic due to the understanding of "nature"
as an interpreted category as discussed
above. Thus, different foundations have been
used, such as the observable world, human
rationality or human culture, upon which to base
this "natural" theology. McGrath then turns to a
more positive statement of the role of natural
theology. Basing his discussion on the biblical
basis for natural theology, and paying close
attention to Barth's objections, he seeks to put
forward just how natural theology can be understood to be legitimate.

  In his discussion of the place of natural
theology within a scientific theology, he asserts
that there is resonance, but not proof, to be
found in a natural theology. " 'Nature' is not a
self-sufficient category, capable of bearing the
epistemological weight which an autonomous
natural theology demands. In its legitimate and
defensible form, natural theology is to be viewed
as a legitimate and proper theological exercise
to be conducted within the scipe of a revealed
knowledge of God, rather than as an autonomous
discipline outside its bounds" (294). Putting his
point in a more concise fashion, he writes,
"Nature has to be seen in a certain way before it
has revelatory potential" (294).

McGrath's understanding of natural theology puts
a capstone on his discussion of nature, as he
draws together the strands he has woven, and
draws out the implications of the problematic
status of "nature" as a category, applying
instead the category of "creation," and heeding
is own methodological assertion that science
should play an ancillary role to theology, as he
subordinates natural theology to (or at least
places it within the context of) revealed theology.

      In this first volume of his scientific
theology, McGrath has truly given us a monumental
work in the field. I applaud first of all his
careful attention to scripture, as he
deliberately places himself within the
evangelical tradition. His work is not one of
speculation, nor is he constantly testing the
currents of modern trends. Instead, in dialogue
with both historical and contemporary views,
always atuned to the biblical foundation of
theology, he gives us a very balanced and irenic
statement of how science and theology should be
related, and further, how nature is to be
understood as creation. I look forward to
reading futher volumes, based on the strong
methodological foundation he has layed for himself in his prolegomena.

I believe he is bound for success because of the
course he has layed out for himself. Cheif among
the strengths I believe his proposal contains is
his repeated assertion that science is never to
have "magisterial" authority over theology.

Even as we assert a certain unity of truth or
overlap between the two disciplines, we must
understand, as McGrath does, that in a
fundamental way, God's self-revelation in Jesus
Christ, as attested in the scripture through the
ministry of the Holy Spirit, must always take
precedent over our provisional (even if current)
formulations and understandings of the world.

At the same time, though, I believe McGrath is
right to assert that there is an imperative for
dialogue between the two disciplines which comes
from a Christian doctrine of creation, for as we
assert that God created the heavens and the
earth, we are affirming the value and revelatory
possibilities of that creation.

      I think one way in which this work has
proved especially helpful for me in navigating
the minefield that is today's dialogue between
science and theology is that McGrath has gotten
down to the root of the relationship, by focusing
on the methodologies of the two disciplines, and
basing his understandings there, as opposed to
getting bogged down in an attempt to demonstrate
the relationship from the way a certain
scientific theory or a certain doctrine has been
formulated (this is not to say that he hasn't
looked at either of these areas, nor that these
are not legitimate undertakings, but that he has
layed a firm foundation before setting out in this endeavor).

      My final conclusion is a strong
recommendation of this book. It is at times
dense, and certainly proves a formidable
undertaking, but his writing is very clear, and
his conclusions are at once careful and
strong. I look forward to further volumes, as
well as to the anticipated Scientific Dogmatics
which may at some point follow up this current
trilogy with a systematic statement of theology
based on the methodological blueprint he has layed forth.

<http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Theology-Alister-E-McGrath/dp/0802839266/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-1882984-9484703>A
Scientific Theology: Reality by Alister E. McGrath
<http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Theology-Theory/dp/0802839274/ref=pd_sim_b_2/104-1882984-9484703>A
Scientific Theology: Theory (Scientific Theology) by Alister E. McGrath
<http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Introduction-Scientific-Theology/dp/0802828159/ref=pd_sim_b_3/104-1882984-9484703>The
Science Of God: An Introduction To Scientific Theology by Alister E. McGrath
<http://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Theological-Anthropology-Philosophical-Relationality/dp/0802848877/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-1882984-9484703>Reforming
Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical
Turn to Relationality by F. LeRon Shults
<http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381/ref=pd_sim_b_5/104-1882984-9484703>Dawkins'
God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 11 10:33:25 2007