[asa] Undue elevation of science in (some) natural theology (was D'Souza vs. Hitchens)

 
 
Since my web writing at
_http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter4.pdf_ (http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter4.pdf)
was invoked in this thread, I thought I would chime in to make a
clarification.
 
John Walley wrote:

Thanks for the reference and I agree that is an excellent article and indeed
a prescient recapitulation of this very thread.

I have the following comments about it though:

I find the following criticism very curious because that is what I see as
the antithesis to natural revelation mentioned earlier. To me, natural
revelation does not elevate science, it subordinates it. It does elevate
reason and spiritual discernment though which is crucial in engaging our
secular culture. Rejecting natural revelation does elevate science however.

[Below is a quote from my writing - AHH]
"A third potential problem with natural theology is that it can be guilty of
elevating science above other ways of knowing, and elevating human reason
above revelation. Are we following the science-idolizing lead of the
Enlightenment by insisting that God should be scientifically detectable in
order to matter?"

My clarification:
 
Earlier in that section, I believe I say that these critiques of "natural
theology" are in some cases only applicable to certain varieties. I would say
that is the case here (notice my "it CAN be guilty" language). I did not
have in mind the flavor of natural theology that simply sees God in the grandeur
of nature (which must be what Rom. 1:20 is talking about if it is talking
about natural theology at all).
 
Instead, the "natural theology" I had in mind in that comment was that of
Paley and his modern successors in the ID movement, who make scientific
evidence (or "gaps" in that evidence) foundational to the faith (to the extent they
make it foundational, one might mention I Cor. 3:11). For example, you have
Phil Johnson saying that in order for God to be a meaningful reality, God
must leave scientifically detectable "fingerprints all over the evidence." That
is a blatant example of "elevating science above other ways of knowing."
 
It is true that those who reject natural revelation may also unduly elevate
science. This would be those like Richard Dawkins who say that science
doesn't show evidence of God (and/or has explained away the "gaps" once attributed
to God), so therefore there is no God. But the Biblical response to this is
not to agree with their underlying science-elevating premise (that God is in
competition with scientific explanations and scientific arguments are the
best evidence for all questions). The Biblical response (see Romans starting
at 3:21 and the early parts of I Corinthians, for example) is to base things
on Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected Messiah, who is not primarily
known via scientific means.
 

Allan (ASA member)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 3 12:51:06 2007