Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"

Hi George,

This looks really good – I'm definitely going to look up that Dialog
article. (fyi for others – abstract can be viewed at
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6385.2007.00332.x ).
I like your term "Goad" – my initial thought is that this is an excellent
description of how science should relate to theology.

Question: How would you describe the relationship the other way ie. theology
to science. I'm assuming you would concur that "Goad" is a very
inappropriate term in this direction - not much better than YEC's
"dictate". And of course "capitulate" is unacceptable for those of us that
respect God's revelation in the Word made flesh and the written Word in
scripture.

thanks,
On 11/28/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> Moorad -
>
> Perhaps I should have expressed myself more fully & stated the basic
> question in 2 parts: (1) *Whether* scientific knowledge of the world
> should inform our theology? (2) If so, *how* should science inform
> theology? & the 2d question can be broken down into (2a) What is the
> general relationship between contributions of the sciences to the whole of
> Christian theology? & (2b) How do specific scientific results contribute
> to particular theological loci?
>
> My own answers, in ultra-brief, are:
>
> (1) Yes, because theology deals with the same world that science studies -
> though it isn't limited to that.
>
> (2a) While science requires no theological input in order to study the
> world (methodological naturalism), the knowledge it gains has theological
> value only when placed in the context of God's revelation in history &, in
> particular, the cross-resurrection event.
>
> (2b) My essay in the Fall 2007 issue of *Dialog*, "Science as Goad and
> Guide for Theology," goes into some detail on specifics. This whole issue
> of the journal is devoted to the theme "The role of science within
> theology," with a wide variety of responses by theologians & scientists.
>
> As I think I've explained previously here, I don't think the
> distinction between "experimental" and "historical" sciences is fundamental
> or of great importance for theology.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> ; ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:09 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> George,
>
>
>
> We must qualify what we mean by "scientific knowledge." If I understand by
> that term results obtained by the experimental sciences, then that kind of
> knowledge has very little to do with our theology. Therefore, there is no
> conflict whatsoever between, say, the Christian faith and the results of
> experimental science. Of course, one may infer a Creator from the fact that
> things do exist and His rationality by the heavy mathematics that is needed
> to develop the laws of Nature. The historical aspect of the historical
> sciences gives rise to potential conflicts. Everyone must scrutinize the
> assumptions that are being made, especially in the analysis of unique, past
> events.
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:12 PM
> *To:* ASA list
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> God's action in the world is indeed one of the major issues in
> science-theology dialogue but it isn't the only one. The question of how
> scientific knowledge of the world should inform our theology is, if
> anything, even more fundamental.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> ; David Opderbeck<dopderbeck@gmail.com>; John
> Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>
> *Cc:* _American Sci Affil <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:45 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> George, does it not boil down always to the question of how God interacts
> with His creation, which is the apex of all theological/philosophical
> questions?
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:23 PM
> *To:* David Opderbeck; John Walley
> *Cc:* _American Sci Affil
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> Of course it's not just "Church: bad; Wilson: innocent." But our concern
> should not just be to absolve the church from blame. Churches in general
> haven't done a very good job over the past few centuries of dealing with
> issues raised by science and technology - especially biological evolution.
> Even "liberal" churches in which most clergy have no problem with evolution
> usually haven't said anything about these issues unless people ask explicit
> questions about them. & people often don't ask pastors &c the questions
> they have because they're afraid of the response they'll get. & the reason
> clergy don't have any problems with evolution is often because they don't
> really understand it & don't take the trouble to learn.
>
>
>
> Churches - & clergy in particular - need to be pro-active about these
> matters, bringing them up in appropriate & sensitive ways in educational
> settings & sermons. They need to create an atmosphere which conveys an
> openness to issues raised by science & technology & which encourages people
> to voice the questions & concerns that they have. Clergy & others involved
> in Christian education can't be & needn't be expert in all scientific areas
> (who can?), but should be interested in them & have some tentative ways of
> dealing with the major theological issues which are involved. There's
> nothing wrong with responding to a question with "I don't know but I'll try
> to find out" or "I'll try to see where you can get an answer."
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>
> *Cc:* _American Sci Affil <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:25 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> I suppose the point here is that the Church was at fault for not giving
> Wilson other options. Perhaps there is a fair point there given the
> particulars of Wilson's upbringing. But what if Wilson's response had been
> to continually ask God to help him better understand the truth. Would
> Wilson then have found organizations like the ASA that existed at the time?
> Would he have found friends and mentors to help him work through the
> questions everyone faces when they grow out of a childish fundamentalism
> into a more mature faith? Would he have felt freer to question some aspects
> of "evolution" as a metanarrative while at the same time broadening his
> understanding of theology and scripture? In short, do we really have to buy
> hook, line and sinker the story: "Church: bad; Wilson: innocent?"
> ..................
>
>

-- 
-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.