RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

George Murphy said:
"But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology."

I don't think I said that, but I did say that Book 2 (God's works) can
trump Book 1 (God's Word).

As an example, Book 1 says there was a worldwide flood, and Book 2
disagrees (in mine and George Murphy's opinion). I think Book 2 wins.
Book 2 trumped Book 1. Theology is adapted accordingly.

I think David Opderbeck made a good point in his first response on this
thread about the queen- we are confusing the topics "two books" with
"Theology as Queen." Theology can be based on anything, 0 or more
books... even mystics with no books have their own theology, as well as
scholars who consider all books. Claiming to have no theology is also a
theology in itself.

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM
To: David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

I see that I stirred up a good deal of discussion & won't try to respond
to everything point by point. But a few clarifications -

1st, there are some phrases in my original post that seem to have been
overlooked. I said that a putative general revelation - I would rather
just say "observation of the world and reason" - "tells us nothing about
who the true God or about the Incarnation & atonement." I did not deny
that a person may conclude from observation of the world that "there is
a God." But it simply does not tell us who that God is - i.e., that he
is the one who brought Israel out of Egypt & raised Jesus from the dead.
It tells us nothing about God as Trinity or the Incarnation. Nothing.
& that has always been recognized by Christians who argue for a natural
knowledge of God.

2d, I used the image of theology of the queen of the sciences to develop
a metaphor. Note my language - "If (as used to be said) theology is the
queen of the sciences, the other sciences are her ministers." David O &
Ted D have had some interesting things to say about the "queen of the
sciences" idea but my purpose in evoking it was simply to have a
picturesque way of describing the roles of theology & the natural
sciences other than the well-worn "2 books" one.

& I went on to say, "But a wise queen will listen to her ministers in
their areas of competence." (Emphasis added.) Bernie says quite
rightly that when it comes, e.g., to the question of 6-day creation or
evolution, evolution wins. That is because theology listens to the
sciences when they speak about their own areas of competence and, as I
said further, will "if necessary reconsider its interpretation of
biblical texts in that light."

But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology. The
serious danger of the ideas of natural knowledge of God and natural
theology is that people will begin to think that they can learn
everything they need to know about God and God's will for us by studying
the world - or in other words, from "natural revelation." Nor is this a
mere theoretical danger - it was pervasive in the eighteenth &
nineteenth centuries with the thought of the Enlightenment & deism, & is
quite explicit in something like Lessing's "Education of the Human
Race." I could give numerous examples & Ted D could no doubt do so more
thoroughly. What it produced at best was a kind of unitarian deism with
an emphasis on morality & some kind of hope for an "afterlife." & you
can find this sort of thing today - e.g., Paul Davies.

The proper procedure in theology, as I emphasized in the PSCF article I
referenced, is to start with God's historical revelation that culminates
in Christ. Then we know who God is and can turn to what science tells
us about the natural world and in some ways learn more fully how the God
revealed in Christ is active in the world. We do that by looking at
scientific knowledge in the light of that historical revelation - that's
why I used the title The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross for one of my
books. & that's the kind of thing that the prophet is doing (in an OT
context) in Is.40:18-25 that was cited here. He isn't pointing to the
heavens as independent proof that YHWH exists. If any Babylonians had
been listening in (this is written to those in exile) they would have
said - "Big whoop! Marduk is the one who stretched out the heavens."
(& after all, to all appearances Marduk had defeated YHWH.) Rather, the
prophet is speaking to Jews from the standpoint of the faith of Israel &
simply claiming - if you prefer, revealing - that the God in whom they'd
believed, the God of the Exodus, was the creator of the whole world.

& note that at the beginning of the last paragraph I made the
qualification "in theology." In studying the world, OTOH< we don't need
to do any theology or say anything at all about God. The queen
shouldn't micromanage her ministers.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 24 15:11:26 2008