Re: [asa] God as Cause

Thanks for posting this, Janice. Note that Alister McGrath is a keynote speaker
at the ASA annual meeting at the University of Edinburgh, August 2-5.
--- Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
>
=== message truncated ===

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.

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 11:20:26 2007