Re: Correction- Re: [asa] God as Cause

I do esteem Barbour and more so Polkinghorne and Peacocke whom it is my privilege to know. When Peacocke began his interest on science and religion in the 5os he went to my uncle who was a physicist clergyman for advice. During the last 20years I met Peacocke most years and at times contacted him for advice. Consequently when Paul Nelson said last year , "Arthur Peacock (sic) I'm not sure would call himself a Christian, he has a rather heterodox theology". I was blazing and my respect for Nelson evaporated.

Esteem involves respect and I respect both Polkinghorne and Peacocke. However my theology is closer to Polk than Peacocke who is far too liberal for my liking. ( he made it clear in an affectionate manner that I was too conservative!!). I am probably a bit closer to McGrath than the two Ps. For your information Polkinghorne started out as an evangelical and slightly broadened out, Peacocke was from a liberal catholic stable and you can see that in his theology.

Also many in Christians in Science over here had respect for Peacocke (and considerable disagreement!) and learnt much from him as he was excellent in tackling the reductionism of Dawkins et al. That was his reason fro founding the Society of Ordained Scientists

Michael
----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: Bill Hamilton ; David Opderbeck ; David Campbell
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:02 PM
  Subject: Correction- Re: [asa] God as Cause

  Sorry - I think I may have mistaken Peacocke for Polkinghorne. If so, I retract the statement below, even though I'm sure there are some reading the list who do esteem both Barbour AND Peacocke. . ~ Janice :)

  At 12:13 PM 1/11/2007, Janice Matchett wrote:

    At 11:19 AM 1/11/2007, Bill Hamilton wrote:

      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.

    @ You're welcome. I have always admired McGrath and would love to hear him speak.

    I especially thought this reviewer's comments were quite interesting given the esteem that some on this list have for Peacocke especially:

    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

    ~ Janice

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 17:11:08 2007