I at least partially grant your comment, but Bowler did write "The argument
developed in this book DEPENDS CRUCIALLY [my emphasis] on this point: the
reconciliation proposed between nonmaterialistic science and liberal
Christianity was based on a continued belief in progress and in the
purposefulness of the material universe [p. 23]". (Though he also added
"Curiously, the literary elite paralleled more traditional Christian
thinkers, both evangelical and Catholic, in rejecting this faith, although
for very different reasons [p.23]".
Thus I didn't mean to imply that Bowler ignored everything but liberal
theology; only that such was his main concern, around which other
events/people are arranged. Also, there were evangelical voices but they
were mostly Scottish, and Bowler admits that he stuck pretty much to the
"golden triangle" of Cambridge-Oxford-London.
Karl V. Evans
In a message dated 1/15/02 8:29:57 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
Your assertion that Bowler's 'main intent was to deal with liberal theology
and non-materialistic science' is a bit off the mark. There was little
evangelical thinking to cite viz. Oliver Barclay (Whatever Happened to the
Jesus Lane Lot (or something like that) and Michael Roberts.
When an evangelical appeared after WWII - C. A. Coulson - Bowler gives him a
thumbs up (p. 415ff). John Brooke kept an eye on the manuscript which I
think would keep the discussion evenhanded.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 23:01:23 EST