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

Thanks for that. AP was born in 1924 and Temple died in 1944 so AP must have been 18 to 20 and been a first or second year undergraduate reading chemistry which my unbelieving father had read 14 years earlier. So he was an evangelical in his teens and ceased to be an agnostic before he was 20 and a half. Maybe I should make more of the fact that I was indifferent until I was nearly 22. I have to smile about McGrath's claims of being an atheist which he ceased to be by 19 or 20.
Incidentally WT's mission to Oxford in 1931 had some influence on my uncle , who advised AP in the 50s. He also looked to William Temple as a guide. I have a copy of the book of the 1931 addresses, which my aunt gave my mother in Easter 1932.

Interestingly AP rejected WT's views on miracles very strongly indeed as WT argued for them and AP did not. There is a lot in Temple for us today.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
  From: Robert Schneider
  To: Michael Roberts
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:17 PM
  Subject: Re: Correction- Re: [asa] God as Cause

  I had two occasions to meet and talk with the late Arthur Peacocke (on both sides of the Pond), and I have read several of his books and article. As one who leans more toward the catholic tradition in Anglicanism, I found much in his theological perspective to resonate with. I esteemed him, as does Michael. There is a fine obituary that tells a lot about his personal life, his life as a scientist, and of his pioneering work in the field of science and religion at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/25/db2501.xml. I recommend it.

  Arthur held strong views, and loved to express them, but he did so, as Michael experienced, with good humor. I learned from the obit. that he began as an evangelical Christian, became an agnostic, but was later moved by an Oxford sermon by Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple, to reconsider. It led him back to Christian faith and the liberal catholic theology in the C of E. Having been familiar with his writings and life of faith for many years, I found Paul Nelson's dismissal of his Christian faith to be repellant, as did Michael.

  Also, his widow Rosemary is an absolutely delightful person. No wonder he married her!

  Bob Schneider
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Michael Roberts
    To: Bill Hamilton ; David Opderbeck ; David Campbell ; Janice Matchett
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:06 PM
    Subject: 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 Sat Jan 13 06:24:26 2007