Steve -
There are several ways in which theology can influence scientists & science appropriately. The following list isn't meant to be exhaustive.
1) An understanding of what it means to say that the universe is the creation of God can motivate people to engage in deeper study of the world & attaempts to understand it. Copernicus & Kepler are a couple of prominent examples.
2) Theology can help science to understand its limits. That means in the 1st place realizing what its limits are - e.g., its inability to answer the "Why is there a universe at all?" question or deal on its own with ethical issues. But it also means getting rid of spurious limits - e.g., the notion (discussed here recently) that science can't or shouldn't deal with the origin of living things, or the notion that we shouldn't "play God" is a serious theological argument. (See, e.g., Ted Peters' book Playing God on that subject.) I.e., good theology can help to get rid of dubious ideas of popular religion, such as those implicit in the ID movement.
3) Theology can help to provide ethical standards for scientific work and for technological applications.
4) Theological concepts may suggest fruitful lines for scientific research. Thomas Torrance has suggested that Maxwell's ideas about the relationships between electricity and magnetism were suggested by Christian ideas about interpersonal relationships within the Trinity. I've suggested that theological ideas about prolepsis and God's creative work from the future should encourage scientific study on retrocausality - i.e., the possibility of transmitting information from future to past.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Martin
To: George Murphy
Cc: Alexanian, Moorad ; ASA list
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: 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
To: George Murphy ; ASA list
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
To: George Murphy ; David Opderbeck ; John Walley
Cc: _American Sci Affil
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
To: John Walley
Cc: _American Sci Affil
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.
Received on Wed Nov 28 16:56:04 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 28 2007 - 16:56:06 EST